On Apr 23, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Doug Schepers wrote:

Jonas and others seem to support broadening the scope, and I've also
been reading various posts in the blogosphere that also question whether
SQL is the right choice (I see a lot of support for JSON-based
approaches). At the very least, I think this group should discuss this more before committing to any one solution. I note that Ian was already open to an early spec revision on the same lines, so I hope this isn't
controversial.

If there is something that is more useful for Web authors as a whole than SQL, and if the browser vendors are willing to implement it, then the spec
should use that, yes.

(I don't know of anything that fits that criteria though. Most of the
proposals so far have been things that are useful in specific scenarios,
but aren't really generic solutions.)


If this is acceptable to the WG as a whole, I would ask that a message
similar to the above be put in a prominent place in the spec.  This
seems like the soundest way forward.

The draft got published today, so it's too late to change the high- profile version of the spec. Rather than add this message, I'd like to just come to some sort of conclusion on the issue. What are the various proposals that exist to solve this problem other than SQL, and how willing are the
browser vendors to implement those solutions?

I don't want to discredit the standardization efforts for SQL in WebStorage. Yet, this spec is just in its FPWD. Won't we be better off coming to a conclusion on the issue of the set of storage solutions and access techniques for the same soon after the WD is published?

By tomorrow, I commit to send a concrete proposal for solving storage needs (besides SQL) that I believe browser vendors would be able to (and hopefully willing to) implement. I am giving my current draft a thorough read before I send it off to the WG.



--
Ian Hickson U+1047E ) \._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _ \ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'-- (,_..'`-.;.'


Reply via email to