- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:49:58 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Nov 9, 2009, at 09:58 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent >> implementations though. > > Would you call multiple implementations that use the standard C > library independent? Obviously there's a judgment call to be made > here. I realize that in this case a database implementation is a > pretty key piece of the problem. At the very least I would expect the CR-exit criteria to require two interoperable implementations of the specification made using different SQL back-ends. Otherwise this would be like implementing something in Gecko and counting Firefox, XulRunner, Seamonkey, etc. as independent implementations. > But I also think it would be more fruitful for you to promote > solutions you do like, than to try to find lawyerly reasons to stop > the advancement of specs you don't (when the later have been > implemented and shipped and likely will see more implementations). I personally am not trying to be lawyery about this, but I think it's only fair to request that this specification be done at the level we expect from others. I therefore don't see much of a point in going to LC without the SQL dialect being specified — it's not a finished spec. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 11:50:36 UTC