For what it's worth I don't think using the word "Web" in the name makes the connection that this is *the* *only* specification for storage for the web. I'll also point out that specs can be renamed at any point in the future if it turns out that the name is confusing.
I also think the name of the spec is largely irrelevant. That said, I don't think a name like "SQLDatabase" is a very good name since there are lots of SQL database specifications and implementations. Something like WebSQLDatabase would be better. IMHO. But like I said, I think it's largely irrelevant. / Jonas On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Nikunj R. Mehta<nikunj.me...@oracle.com> wrote: > I would like to suggest that these specs be renamed to better reflect what > they are about. > > For one, using the term Web in the title draws attention as the one (or the > primary one). Secondly, it says nothing about the constructs offered. For > example, WebDatabase suggests that this is *the* spec for structured > storage, when, in fact, this group has argued in favor of multiple > approaches, including one on B-tree databases that I have proposed. > > My suggestion is to rename the WebDatabase spec as the SQLDatabase spec. > That way any other approach can be called the XXXDatabase spec. > > Similarly, with WebStorage, it is not clear what is the meaning of "Web" in > the title, especially since we are currently left with just key-value > storage. Since Web does nothing, except to distract and possibly mislead > people into thinking that the spec covers all possible storage needs, I > would suggest that the editor drop the word Web from the spec title. I also > have a suggestion for the title - Key Value Storage. I do realize that this > might be moot given that WebStorage has already gone through FPWD. Still, it > does us no harm to at least rectify the situation now rather than going to > CR with this name. > > Nikunj > http://o-micron.blogspot.com > > > > On Jul 15, 2009, at 3:56 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] (if anything, I think we should split Web Storage into two >>>> further specs [...] >>> >>> [...] I would prefer to see SQL Storage split out of the rest of Web >>> Storage. We seem to have rough consensus and strong multilateral >>> implementor interest on LocalStorage and SessionStorage, and they should >>> be allowed to move forward on the standards track quickly. SQL Storage >>> remains contentious, and only Apple and Google have shown strong >>> implementor interest so far. And it has no technical tie to the other >>> storage drafts. >> >> Done. >> >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/ >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/ >> >> I'll probably not ask for Web Database to go to last call in October >> (unlike the rest of the specs I'm working on), so that we can add the SQL >> definition before last call (which I plan to do either Q4 this year or >> early next year). >> >> -- >> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL >> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. >> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >> > > >
