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

Not to beat a dead horse, but would count
as an independent implementation of the SQLite SQL syntax?

Shane Harrelson

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Arthur Barstow <>wrote:

> 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
>>> <> 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 Wednesday, 1 January 2014 21:50:29 UTC