- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:10:19 -0800
- To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
As always, I should point out that there is no such thing as an official mozilla position. With that out of the way, my feelings are: * I don't think that source code makes a good specification. It's bound to specify things that we'd rather not specify (i.e. bugs in the code), and it'll make it hard to write multiple independent specifications. * I personally don't consider multiple implementations that are all backed by SQLite to be independent implementations. Given that, and that it sounds like no one is planning on writing an implementation that is not backed by SQLite, it does not seem like this spec is likely to go to Rec. However, if despite these comments others want to spend time on taking the spec further, and if W3C is willing to allow that despite the above technical comments, then I'm not going to stand in the way. I'd rather spend my time on improving the spec formerly known as WebSimpleDB. / Jonas On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Art, > > This is Oracle's official position on Web SQL Database: Oracle does not > believe that Web SQL Database is ready for Last Call. > > Oracle believes that: > > 1. It is not good for the industry to start a new SQL language standard > track. A better approach would be to define a profile based on the existing > SQL language standard, ISO/IEC 9075, that meets the needs of Web > applications. We should not ignore the many years of work by that committee > and the database community, and should instead build on it. > > 2. The draft being proposed for Last Call, defines the SQL language by > referring to a particular version of the SQLite implementation. Such a > definition is not a valid standard as it does not allow for alternative > implementations. To turn this into a valid specification we need to include > a normative textual specification of the language accepted by SQLite. We can > start with the SQLite SQL language manual (http://www.sqlite.org/lang.html), > but again, just referring to this URL is not acceptable as a normative > specification. > > 3. Assuming that the editor decides to specify the SQL language by including > its normative textual specification, the WG needs time to review this > substantial amount of new material before sending this proposal out to the > larger community. > > I want to remind the members that silence today means assent for Last Call, > which means they agree that: (1) A new SQL language standards track is good, > (2) Defining a bag of implementation bits as a standard is good. Even if you > personally have lost interest in this specification and can't be bothered to > respond, remember that we in the WG have a collective responsibility to do > no harm. > > Nikunj > > P. S. Consider this paragraph from the SQLite manual > (http://www.sqlite.org/lang_droptable.html): >> >> The DROP TABLE statement does not reduce the size of the database file in >> the default mode. Empty space in the database is retained for later INSERT >> statements. To remove free space in the database, use the VACUUM statement. >> If auto_vacuum mode is enabled for a database then space will be freed >> automatically by DROP TABLE. > > This is a perfectly fine behavior and a perfectly fine paragraph in a > manual. However this is not the kind of language you expect to see in a > standard where a wider range of behaviors is desired. > > On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish a Last Call Working Draft of >> the following specs: >> >> 1. Server-Sent Events >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/ >> >> 2. Web SQL Database >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ >> >> 3. Web Sockets API >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ >> >> 4. Web Storage >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ >> >> 5. Web Workers >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/ >> >> This CfC satisfies the group's requirement to "record the group's decision >> to request advancement" to LCWD. Note that as specified in the Process >> Document [PD], a Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that: >> >> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical >> requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working >> Draft; >> >> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant >> dependencies with other groups; >> >> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these >> dependencies have been satisfied. In general, a Last Call announcement is >> also a signal that the Working Group is planning to advance the technical >> report to later maturity levels. >> >> As with all of our CfCs, positive response is preferred and encouraged and >> silence will be assumed to be assent. The deadline for comments is 14 >> December. >> >> The comment period length will be 6 months (ending ~17 June 2010 if the >> LCWD is published ~ 17 December 2009) unless someone commits (by 15 >> December) to completing the review earlier including actively editing the >> spec, responding to comments, etc. >> >> -Regards, Art Barstow >> >> [PD] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call >> >> >> > > Nikunj > http://o-micron.blogspot.com > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 12 December 2009 04:11:20 UTC