W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:53:49 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=kY8Ck3qkZtUXG6WMO+A6kFJZF0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Benjamin Poulain <benjamin.poulain@nokia.com>, ext Nathan Kitchen <w3c@nathankitchen.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
>> Lastly, some vendors have expressed unwillingness to embed SQLite for
>> legal reasons. Embedding other peoples code definitely exposes you to
>> risk of copyright and patent lawsuits. While I can't say that I fully
>> agree with this reasoning, I'm also not the one that would be on the
>> receiving end of a lawsuit. Nor am I a lawyer and so ultimately will
>> have to defer to people that know better. In the end it doesn't really
>> matter as if a browser won't embed SQLite then it doesn't matter why,
>> the end result is that the same SQL dialect won't be available cross
>> browser which is bad for the web.
> If SQLite was to be used as a web standard, I'd hope that it wouldn't show
> up in a spec as simply "do what SQLite does", but as a complete spec of
> SQLite's behavior.  Browser vendors could then, if their lawyers insisted,
> implement their own compatible implementation, just as they do with other
> web APIs.  I'd expect large portions of SQLite's test suite to be adaptable
> as a major starting point for spec tests, too.

Have you read the WebSQL spec?

> Creating such a spec would be a formidable task, of course.

Indeed. One that the SQL community has failed in doing so far. And
they have a lot more experience with SQL than we do.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 19:54:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:18 UTC