- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 03:23:27 -0700
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: Michael Fitchett <michael.fitchett@spotsync.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> 2. *Two* independent, production quality, database implementations >> being willing to implement exactly that SQL dialect. Not a subset of >> it, and not a superset of it. > > This is an overstatement. It's not required that there be two > implementations of something that are exactly the same, match the spec > exactly, with no experimental features, no unimplemented features and no > known bugs. That's not how development of features on the Web works. I didn't say "no bugs", I said "not a subset". But yes, additional features could definitely be exist within reason. Though the intent should be that those features are going to be added to the standard. And it needs to be clear that those features are extensions, for example through the use of prefixes or by only enabling them when opted into by the user. I think there is reason to be extra conservative about allowing deviations from the standard here. SQL has a horrible record of interoperability. So someone needs to show that interoperability can actually be accomplished. / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2013 10:24:25 UTC