What they mean is that defining a generic subset of SQL with one implementation was considered too difficult. With more than one implementation a common subset becomes easier for the standard writers to extract. With RelationalDB I have taken a completely different approach. We started from relational algebra on relation objects as a starting point. The SQL backend then conforms to the requirements of the relational algebra - thus we define relationally-complete functionality with no reference to any SQL specification. Cheers, Keean. On 31 March 2011 16:06, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Benjamin Poulain < > benjamin.poulain@nokia.com> wrote: > > WebSQL in its current form is pretty dead, see > > http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ : > > <quote>Beware. This specification is no longer in active maintenance and > the > > Web Applications Working Group does not intend to maintain it > > further.</quote> > > > > And: > > <quote>This document was on the W3C Recommendation track but > specification > > work has stopped. The specification reached an impasse: all interested > > implementors have used the same SQL backend (Sqlite), but we need > multiple > > independent implementations to proceed along a standardisation > path.</quote> > > This is painful to read. WebSQL development died because SQLite, the most > widely-deployed database software in the world, was too good? That sounds > like a catastrophic failure of the W3C process. > > -- > Glenn Maynard >
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 16:40:53 UTC