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

Re: Points of order on this WG

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:54:42 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "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>
Message-id: <80C63803-B2BF-4164-9A4C-25B76757B306@apple.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>

On Jun 26, 2009, at 12:56 AM, Doug Schepers wrote:

> Art, Chaals, Mike, and I discussed this yesterday, and we agreed  
> that this seems like the best solution.  Like the Widgets work, a  
> deliverable doesn't necessarily have to be in a single spec, so we  
> believe there is sufficient justification for this in the charter.
> The plan of record would be to split out the SQL Storage section  
> into its own spec, with an alternate spec edited by Nikunj, and to  
> publish an updated draft of Web Storage that points to both those  
> other drafts. This way, all parts of the web storage deliverable are  
> put on a level playing field to be judged on their individual  
> merits, and subject to being edited and updated individually.

I don't think the Web Storage draft (I assume by this you mean the  
remaining draft that would define LocalStorage and SessionStorage)  
needs to link to either of the other drafts. I also don't think  
proposals for other storage APIs need to be "alternate"; they could be  
orthogonal non-overlapping specs and implementors could choose which  
make sense for them.

I should add that I still think SQL Storage is a good technical  
solution to the problem of structured client-side storage. Web  
developers who are specifically targeting mobile devices, or in  
particular iPhone, have given extremely positive feedback about both  
LocalStorage and SQL Storage, as well as the HTML5 Application Cache.  
On general-purpose Web sites, of course, uptake is limited by the lack  
of other implementations so far. But Web developers seem positive  
about it as a technology, based on feedback from presentations. All of  
this makes me doubt that a fundamentally different model for  
structured storage is needed or would be significantly better.

That being said, I would like to see the technology succeed on its own  
merits and not by being tie to the so far more widely deployed  
technology of LocalStorage/SessionStorage.

Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 08:55:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:54 UTC