- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:45 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> 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 just want to make it clear that I don't consider multiple implementations based on SQLite to be "independent". However I realize that that is my interpretation of the independence requirement, others might not share it. I'm also not sure if Operas implementation *is* in fact based on SQLite. If it's not then I agree they are truly independent. / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 21 November 2009 08:01:39 UTC