Re: Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active

On 10/1/13 8:46 AM, ext David Bruant wrote:
> Le 27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
>> <michael.fitchett@spotsync.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
>>>
>>> Regarding:  Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
>>>
>>> I would like to request  that you make the W3C Web SQL Database
>>> specification active again. The Web SQL Database Specification enables
>>> developers to build web-based applications that can store, retrieve,
>>> manipulate and query against data on the client machine. This 
>>> technology is
>>> similar to SQLite, Microsoft SQL Server, MySQL, etc. Web SQL 
>>> combined with
>>> Manifest enable developers to build web-based applications that work 
>>> while
>>> offline.
>>>
>>> The Web SQL Database specification was on the W3C Recommendation 
>>> track, but
>>> the specification was stopped because Mozilla and Microsoft did not 
>>> want to
>>> implement a specification that lacked proper SQL definition. I know 
>>> there is
>>> a need for both a NoSQL and SQL solution. The two specifications 
>>> (Web SQL
>>> Database and Indexed Database API) that exist to date are acceptable..
>>> However, as stated above, the problem is the lack of definition for 
>>> SQL.
>>> Since lack of definition is the issue, I would like to recommend a 
>>> remedy.
>>> I know SQL experts and great documentation writers who I would 
>>> gladly hire
>>> to further define the Web SQL Database specification and fill in the 
>>> missing
>>> SQL definition. Is this something that would be possible to help 
>>> revive the
>>> specification and get the remaining vendors on board?
>> The minimum requirements for bringing back WebSQL, or any other
>> SQL-based web spec is IMHO:
>>
>> 1. A specification for the SQL dialect being proposed.
>> 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.
>> 3. The two independent implementations need to have roughly the same
>> performance characteristics. I.e. it's not ok for an implementation to
>> generate correct results, but do it so slowly that it's in practice
>> unusable.
> I'd like to add another requirement which is having a significant 
> advantage over IndexedDB. If web devs want SQL, they can have it on 
> top of IndexedDB in the form of an open source library (I'm willing to 
> be it already exists). They don't need to wait for a standard to 
> emerge, nor for browsers to consistently implement it.
>
> If they really want a spec, they can create a W3C community group (or 
> a Github repo). We don't need browsers to do all the work for us!


Michael - I don't see consensus to re-visit WebApps' decision to stop 
working on Web SQL Database.

Like David, I also was thinking that a W3C Community Group could be a 
way for you to do related work.

-Regards, AB

Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 12:54:17 UTC