- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:23:38 +0000
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- CC: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:51 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > I think it make sense to clarify in working drafts that this spec is > unlikely to be interoperable across the web at large, but is usable for > various specific systems. > > I don't think it makes sense to just turn it into a note at this stage - > as the Google guys said, let's get some experience with WebSimpleDB > before > we make a final call. Likewise, I agree with Robin that it might not make > sense to take this to Last Call, because of the uncertainty about where > we > are going to end up. I agree with Chaals. As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively be able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue (it's not like we can even choose one of the existing 'standard' SQL dialects since current implementations don't conform to anything like that). Considering that, it seems unlikely that there will be two independent interoperable implementations at the SQL level which makes moving to Last Call potentially problematic. On the other hand, it seems premature to dismiss the work entirely as a WG Note when more than one member has expressed a desire to move forward. I do wonder whether it might make sense to include an editor's note in the WD indicating that independent implementations of the SQL dialect aren't currently anticipated just so that anyone unfamiliar with this conversation would be aware from the spec. Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 05:25:21 UTC