- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:20:43 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jeff Mischkinsky <JEFF.MISCHKINSKY@oracle.com>
On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > In any case, adding a new feature to a spec whose future is uncertain > isn't a good idea because it means that the new feature's progress > is tied > to the uncertain future of the rest of the spec. Thus, my > recommendation > to Nikunj would be to create a new WG deliverable, not one tied to the > fate of the SQL Database section. [...] > I think Nikunj's proposal definitely is worthy of being persued, > just like > the working group is persuing dozens of other proposals like XHR, > CORS, > Selectors API, Workers, Server-Sent Events, Web Sockets, etc. I don't > believe it really fits into the Web Storage spec (if anything, I > think we > should split Web Storage into two further specs, not add a third > wholly > independent feature to it). However, I would definitely support an > FPWD > publication of Nikunj's proposal, as I have for other proposals. I strongly agree on these points. I would prefer to see SQL Storage split out of the rest of Web Storage. We seem to have rough consensus and strong multilateral implementor interest on LocalStorage and SessionStorage, and they should be allowed to move forward on the standards track quickly. SQL Storage remains contentious, and only Apple and Google have shown strong implementor interest so far. And it has no technical tie to the other storage drafts. I also think Nikunj's proposal should be yet a third separate orthogonal draft. Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 23:21:27 UTC