- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:51:53 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nikunj Mehta wrote: > On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:18:40 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the > > > high-profile version of the spec. Rather than add this message, I'd > > > like to just come to some sort of conclusion on the issue. What are > > > the various proposals that exist to solve this problem other than > > > SQL, and how willing are the browser vendors to implement those > > > solutions? > > > > FWIW, Opera is primarily interested in implementing the APIs currently > > in the specification (including the SQL API). Specifying the specifics > > of the SQL dialect in due course would be good though, but doing that > > does not seem very controversial and I would assume is a requirement > > for going to Last Call. > > I am puzzled that you feel that specifying the semantics for the SQL > dialect would be straightforward. We have no experience of using more > than a single database implementation for WebStorage. That's pretty much why it would be straightforward. > Its kind of interesting that the WG is attempting to standardize that > which has no more than a single implementation. Most things in the W3C get standardised (to LC or CR) before they have even one. Having one at all is generally considered a bonus. :-) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 06:52:30 UTC