Re: Points of order on this WG

On Jun 26, 2009, at 10:54 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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.

It is customary, when something is split out of a draft, to link to it  
so that people can find it using their old bookmarks. I think that's  
all that Doug meant here — not linking in the normative sense.

> 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.

Well, the advantage of SQL is that developers know it, and have been  
wanting something like that on the client for ages (I know I have).  
There are non-negligible issues however in defining it interoperably.  
Also, I think there's a possibility that it's popular with developers  
simply because it's the only option. That's why ideally I'd like to  
give us the leeway to experiment a little around various options  
before committing completely to SQL.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/

Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 09:13:29 UTC