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

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
>