- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 03:56:55 -0800
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.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 3:49 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > 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. I agree that your Gecko example would be questionable. But to give an example on the other side of the fence, WebKit uses a copy of Mozilla's image decoding code, and yet I think our implementation of the <img> element clearly counts as independent. I would say choice of SQL back end falls somewhere between these two examples. > >> 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. Those present at the Web Apps WG face-to-face session on this topic generally agreed otherwise. Not to say that no one can disagree, but it seemed that most could live with a spec for only the API layers. I did not insist on a query language spec, because just advancing the API spec seemed like the most practical way to move forward at the time. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 11:57:35 UTC