- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:30:46 +0200
- To: "Nikunj Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:32:31 +0200, Nikunj Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> 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. I didn't say it would be straightforward. It might be, but I really wouldn't know. > We have no experience of using more than a single database > implementation for WebStorage. Its kind of interesting that the WG is > attempting to standardize that which has no more than a single > implementation. The draft specification was there before the implementation and there's a plug-in implementation (Gears) as well. It sees better to coordinate new APIs then to end up with four incompatible ones. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 09:31:40 UTC