On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Nov 9, 2009, at 09:58 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Indeed. I still personally wouldn't call it multiple independent
implementations though.
Would you call multiple implementations that use the standard C
library independent? Obviously there's a judgment call to be made
here. I realize that in this case a database implementation is a
pretty key piece of the problem.
At the very least I would expect the CR-exit criteria to require two
interoperable implementations of the specification made using
different SQL back-ends. Otherwise this would be like implementing
something in Gecko and counting Firefox, XulRunner, Seamonkey, etc.
as independent implementations.
I agree that your Gecko example would be questionable. But to give an
example on the other side of the fence, WebKit uses a copy of
Mozilla's image decoding code, and yet I think our implementation of
the <img> element clearly counts as independent. I would say choice of
SQL back end falls somewhere between these two examples.
But I also think it would be more fruitful for you to promote
solutions you do like, than to try to find lawyerly reasons to stop
the advancement of specs you don't (when the later have been
implemented and shipped and likely will see more implementations).
I personally am not trying to be lawyery about this, but I think
it's only fair to request that this specification be done at the
level we expect from others. I therefore don't see much of a point
in going to LC without the SQL dialect being specified — it's not a
finished spec.
Those present at the Web Apps WG face-to-face session on this topic
generally agreed otherwise. Not to say that no one can disagree, but
it seemed that most could live with a spec for only the API layers. I
did not insist on a query language spec, because just advancing the
API spec seemed like the most practical way to move forward at the time.
Regards,
Maciej
