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

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

From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:23:14 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinU+cOYufo=21FPWWZTjq6H1qRO0M==ujtJqoLC@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
Cc: Nathan Kitchen <w3c@nathankitchen.com>, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Hi Shawn

I would be interested in this. What would need to be done to make this a
Firefox plugin? I've done XPCOM stuff before in xulrunner if that's any

 On Apr 1, 2011 6:09 PM, "Shawn Wilsher" <sdwilsh@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/2011 5:40 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote:
>> Are there any browser vendor representatives on the mailing list who
>> care to comment on the criteria for implementing something akin to
>> RelationalDB<https://github.com/keean/RelationalDB> idea? What would need
>> to be in place to start work on such an implementation?
> It wouldn't be terribly difficult to prototype this as an add-on for
> Firefox, I don't think (and I'd be happy to provide technical assistance
> to anyone wishing to do so). Doing this would allow web developers to
> install the add-on and play with it, which can give us useful feedback.
> I'm not saying we'd move it into the tree at that point, but it's a good
> first step to building a case to take it.
>> 1. Opportunity to explore more solutions to "offline data" than *just *
>> IndexedDB.
> There is also http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/offline.html and
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ (even if you don't like them, they
> are other solutions to the offline problem). Browser vendors are not
> just looking at IndexedDB.
>> 2. Many web developers have a working knowledge of SQL, so the concepts
>> of a relational database may be more familiar. If adoption could be
>> considered a proxy for the "success" of a standard, I'd suggest that
>> for something the web development community understands would be a large
>> factor in adoption.
> I don't really think IndexedDB is that dissimilar to a relational
> database. There are a lot of one-to-one mappings of concepts of one to
> the other.
>> 3. It's probably (!) easier to implement RelationalDB than IndexedDB, as
>> it maps fairly cleanly to existing relational database technologies. This
>> would allow vendors to implement it using Sqlite, Access, etc independent
>> the spec.
> Given that most vendors already have working implementations of
> IndexedDB, I don't think this is a good argument ;)
> Cheers,
> Shawn
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 22:23:49 UTC

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