W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Web Storage Scope and Charter

From: Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:52:37 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-Id: <42374810-13C4-49A8-A6DA-A6FF826D34FE@oracle.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> 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. :-)

That does simplify things for me and should help the proposal I am to  
make tomorrow. 
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 06:54:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC