On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > 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. > I think it's very different from <img>. <img> implementations support multiple formats, Web Database implementations only support one dialect, with no way to switch between them. The widely used <img> formats are pretty well specified and have many independent implementations each, the Web Database dialect is not well specified and has only one implementation. It makes sense to view <img> as a portal to an unrestricted set of image formats, but it doesn't make sense to view Web Database as a generic API to various SQL dialects, IMHO. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 12:38:40 UTC