- From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:38:39 -0700
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
Doug Schepers wrote: > Hi, Nikunj- > > I think Mike was overly blunt, but essentially correct in his > response, but I'd like to add a specific comment inline... > > Nikunj R. Mehta wrote (on 6/24/09 8:13 PM): >> >> On Jun 23, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >>> The Web Storage specification is someone dead-locked right now due >>> to the >>> lack of consensus on whether to use SQL or not. > > I don't buy this argument for an instant, and I'd be very surprised if > anyone in the WebApps WG did. This specification was published as > specified because it matched the behavior (more or less) of an > implementation (WebKit), and it's disingenuous to pretend that that > doesn't set a precedent for the future development of the specification. This topic continues to be discussed in Mozilla newsgroups. Few are reconciled to SQL usage: Example: http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.community.web-standards/topics Solutions such as BrowserCouch (which straddles localStorage currently) offer other options: http://www.toolness.com/wp/?p=580 I'd personally rather see a clear articulation of use cases that we agree are important for the web than further specification work. -- A*
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 05:39:23 UTC