- From: Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 22:23:14 +0000
- To: Shawn Wilsher <sdwilsh@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Nathan Kitchen <w3c@nathankitchen.com>, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTinU+cOYufo=21FPWWZTjq6H1qRO0M==ujtJqoLC@mail.gmail.com>
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 help. Cheers, Keean 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 would >> care to comment on the criteria for implementing something akin to Keean's >> 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 aiming >> 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 of >> 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