W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2014

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

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 05:31:22 +0100
To: "Shane Harrelson" <shane@mo-ware.com>, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, "Michael Fitchett" <michael.fitchett@spotsync.com>
Message-ID: <op.w81liknvy3oazb@chaals>
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:00:21 +0100, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Shane Harrelson wrote:
>
>> Not to beat a dead horse, but would  
>> https://code.google.com/p/csharp-sqlite/ count as an independent  
>> implementation of the SQLite SQL syntax?
>>
> So no, it would not count (not unless we want to really dilute how a  
> specification becomes a W3C standard).

To prove that it is possible to independently implement the specification  
and get something interoperable, it would in principle be fine. But that  
is only one part of the requirements for a standard...

> Using an unmaintained project as a ways of advancing as specification  
> would kinda defeat the point of standardization of browser technology.

In that it fails to change the perception that there is not real interest  
in making the particular spec into a standard.

> To benefit the web, the only independent implementations that would  
> actually matter would need to be browser-based.

That's not really true. It is important to get implementations in  
browsers, and the fact that currently a number of major browsers have  
stated that they are not interested in implementing (or in some cases in  
maintaining impementations of) Web SQL is one reason it is not considered  
worth further work at this time.

If there were compelling* services based on WebSQL, the question might be  
re-examined. The inability to meet a particular bureaucratic  
interpretation of "independently implemented interoperable uses" isn't the  
reason why work has stopped. It happened because there was no apparent  
likelihood of WebSQL becoming a standard that was generally implemented,  
and there was an alternative that appeared to have a much higher  
probability of being worth working on.

Of course, all these judgements are just that. History has proven them  
wrong in the past, and that will continue to happen.

cheers

Chaals

*I mean something that has 10% penetration, or 25% penetration in a few  
key markets, not just "a few hundred people agree this is really  
fantastic" - although if those people happen to be browser engineers or  
standards wonks the reality is that you have a better chance of getting a  
real standard to occur)


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 04:32:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:21 UTC