Re: What do we mean by "parking" Web Database? [Was: Re: TPAC report day 2]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2009, at 3:53 PM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>> The draft minutes are included at
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html starting from the WebIDL
>
> Thanks for the summaries Chaals!
>
>> Offline storage / databases
>>   The SQL-based Web Database proposal will probably not be implemented by
>> major players so is being shifted to a "parked and of historical interest"
>> mode while we work on the Web Simple Database proposal from Nikunj. We
>> also touched on Datacache, and ended with an action for Nikunj to explain
>> how it relates to appcache if you have the two running together.
>
> The minutes for the Web Database discussion [1] don't address what we mean
> by "parking" Web Database.
>
> I heard Hixie say it should be included in a call for pre-LC comments thus I
> included it in the related call on 4 November [2] and members of the group
> have an opportunity to raise issues if they think Web Database is not ready
> for a LCWD.
>
> However, later in the week, I participated in some hallway discussions where
> members of the group said they prefer Web Database be "parked" by publishing
> it as a Working Group Note (rather than a LCWD):
>
> [[
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q75
>
> Working Group Note
>
> A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to indicate
> that work has ended on a particular topic. A Working Group MAY publish a
> Working Group Note with or without its prior publication as a Working Draft.
> ]]
>
> So, when we say we want to "park" Web Database, what do we mean: publish as
> LCWD, publish as Working Group note, something else? If necessary, we can
> start a CfC on this question.
>
> -Regards, Art Barstow
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item12
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0477.html

>From a technical point of view, are we expecting that there will
actually be multiple independent interoperable implementations? If
Operas implementations uses SQLite in the backend, it seems like all
implementations are SQLite based and thus technically not independent.

The reason I bring this aspect up is that this was one of the big
reasons that we didn't want to implement this at mozilla, that it
seemed to lock us in to a specific backend-library, and likely a
specific version of that library.

Ultimately I don't care much either way really. Though it would be
nice to make it clear that it's not expected that the spec will be
implemented in all browsers.

/ Jonas

Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 20:44:21 UTC