- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:08:37 +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 Friday, November 20, 2009 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman > <adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > ...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 seems unlikely that there will be two independent interoperable > > implementations at the SQL level which makes moving to Last Call > > potentially problematic... > > I expect to see interoperable implementations from Opera and Apple/Chrome > - so although you can argue that iPhone-Safari and Safari are hardly > independent, I think we will easily get a couple of truly independent > interoperable versions. I was under the impression that Opera were using the same SQLite library as Apple/Google to provide the SQL implementation (obviously the JavaScript part Web Database API implementation would be independent). If that is not the case then I agree that they are independent however using the same library is a single implementation of the SQL dialect part of the spec. > > 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. > > I think the spec should be more careful, stating something like "we do > not currently anticipate that browsers will all implement the spec", and > pointing to the WebSimpleDB as a *more likely* implementation based on > current knowledge. That seems reasonable. Cheers, Adrian
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 15:10:16 UTC