Re: Seeking pre-LCWD comments for: Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets, Storage Workers}; deadline 19 November

On Nov 25, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com 
> > wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>
> Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next  
> steps as:
>
> 1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers - ready for LCWD
> publication. Later today I will begin a CfC to publish LCWD of these
> three specs
>
> 2. Web Sockets API - the group should discuss Adrian's comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 
> 0842.html
>
> 3. Web Database - there is sufficient interest to keep this spec on  
> the
> Recommendation track. However, there is an open question about who  
> will
> commit to drive this spec, in particular who will commit to being its
> Editor. Hixie - would you please explain your intent/position here?
>
> My intent with the Web SQL Database spec (or whatever I end up calling
> it) is to continue to drive it to REC, but without defining the SQL
> dialect in any more detail than the draft does now (as edited after  
> the
> F2F).
>
> This suggests that we are unlikely to make any progress on the draft  
> past this point.
>
>
> I would not consider multiple implementations all using the same SQL
> backend to be fully independent for the purposes of getting two
> interoperable implementations for the purpose of exiting CR, and  
> thus I do
> not expect this spec to ever get past that stage.
>
> I don't see any logic in this that would benefit this WG.
>
> I think the logic behind the decision is already clear in this  
> thread.  I don't see why you're being so adamant about this when  
> you're affected very little by the decision either way (except that  
> your proposal has less "competition" I suppose).

My position about WebDatabase has been the same for over 8 months now.  
Needless to say, objections are about the substance not the business  
benefit or otherwise. If you or others can offer a clear solution  
about the substance of my issue, I will gladly withdraw my objection.  
There is no benefit in us discussing reasons for why we have a  
substantive issue. It exists therefore I have the issue and I am not  
willing to look the other way.

Oracle cares to avoid needless confusion and I don't think I am doing  
any disservice to this WG as Oracle's representative in stating its  
position, which is principled, constructive and transparent.

What doesn't make sense is to put this WG through the effort knowing  
fully well that the result cannot be accomplished. The editor's  
proposal appears to be an attempt at circumventing the W3C process.  
Not every behavior you or other vendors implement is a good or a legal  
standard. It is hypocritical to condone attempts at standardizing such  
behaviors.

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com