Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: While good work has gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call Level Interface (CLI), we have made no progress on its SQL language specification and are not likely to in the future. For the record, we've made no progress because I explicitly wasn't going to do it until 2010. If either Microsoft or Mozilla (or ideally both) are interested in implementing this after all, I would be quite willing to write the spec for SQL to the same level of detail as HTML5. In the absence of interest in the matter, however, I'm happy to let the spec stand without a definition of the SQL dialect beyond just use sqlite. It just means we can't progress the spec past CR. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: ...As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively be able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue ...it seems unlikely that there will be two independent interoperable implementations at the SQL level which makes moving to Last Call potentially problematic... I expect to see interoperable implementations from Opera and Apple/Chrome - so although you can argue that iPhone-Safari and Safari are hardly independent, I think we will easily get a couple of truly independent interoperable versions. I just want to make it clear that I don't consider multiple implementations based on SQLite to be independent. However I realize that that is my interpretation of the independence requirement, others might not share it. I'm also not sure if Operas implementation *is* in fact based on SQLite. If it's not then I agree they are truly independent. / Jonas
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: ...As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively be able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue ... it seems unlikely that there will be two independent interoperable implementations at the SQL level which makes moving to Last Call potentially problematic... I expect to see interoperable implementations from Opera and Apple/Chrome - so although you can argue that iPhone-Safari and Safari are hardly independent, I think we will easily get a couple of truly independent interoperable versions. That said, given the current reluctance of MS and Mozilla to implement, it does seem unlikely that this will achieve reliable interoperability on the Web at large. I do wonder whether it might make sense to include an editor's note in the WD indicating that independent implementations of the SQL dialect aren't currently anticipated just so that anyone unfamiliar with this conversation would be aware from the spec. I think the spec should be more careful, stating something like we do not currently anticipate that browsers will all implement the spec, and pointing to the WebSimpleDB as a *more likely* implementation based on current knowledge. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
RE: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Friday, November 20, 2009 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman adria...@microsoft.com wrote: ...As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively be able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue ... it seems unlikely that there will be two independent interoperable implementations at the SQL level which makes moving to Last Call potentially problematic... I expect to see interoperable implementations from Opera and Apple/Chrome - so although you can argue that iPhone-Safari and Safari are hardly independent, I think we will easily get a couple of truly independent interoperable versions. I was under the impression that Opera were using the same SQLite library as Apple/Google to provide the SQL implementation (obviously the JavaScript part Web Database API implementation would be independent). If that is not the case then I agree that they are independent however using the same library is a single implementation of the SQL dialect part of the spec. I do wonder whether it might make sense to include an editor's note in the WD indicating that independent implementations of the SQL dialect aren't currently anticipated just so that anyone unfamiliar with this conversation would be aware from the spec. I think the spec should be more careful, stating something like we do not currently anticipate that browsers will all implement the spec, and pointing to the WebSimpleDB as a *more likely* implementation based on current knowledge. That seems reasonable. Cheers, Adrian
RE: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:51 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: I think it make sense to clarify in working drafts that this spec is unlikely to be interoperable across the web at large, but is usable for various specific systems. I don't think it makes sense to just turn it into a note at this stage - as the Google guys said, let's get some experience with WebSimpleDB before we make a final call. Likewise, I agree with Robin that it might not make sense to take this to Last Call, because of the uncertainty about where we are going to end up. I agree with Chaals. As I noted at TPAC, at Microsoft we don't think we'll collectively be able to achieve reasonable interop because of the SQL dialect issue (it's not like we can even choose one of the existing 'standard' SQL dialects since current implementations don't conform to anything like that). Considering that, it seems unlikely that there will be two independent interoperable implementations at the SQL level which makes moving to Last Call potentially problematic. On the other hand, it seems premature to dismiss the work entirely as a WG Note when more than one member has expressed a desire to move forward. I do wonder whether it might make sense to include an editor's note in the WD indicating that independent implementations of the SQL dialect aren't currently anticipated just so that anyone unfamiliar with this conversation would be aware from the spec. Cheers, Adrian.
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
I'm not sure that further back-and-forth on this topic is useful at this time. I know that you are strongly against Web Database. You have expressed that view for some time, and I don't expect to change your mind. I don't find your arguments particularly persuasive either. If we continue this debate, then doubtless we will rehash points that have already been discussed to death. (If, contrary to my expectation, the rest of the Working Group would like to see more of this discussion, then please let me know, and I'll be glad to reply to Nikunj's points in exacting detail.) Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database implementations (Google, Opera, perhaps others who have not spoken up yet) take the position that they would be like to end work on Web Database at the W3C, then I'm fine with publishing it as a Note (and possibly continuing work as a WHATWG or webkit.org spec). Until then, I would prefer to see work continue here. Regards, Maciej On Nov 17, 2009, at 11:23 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Hi guys, I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on this specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it out for last call. (2) While good work has gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call Level Interface (CLI), we have made no progress on its SQL language specification and are not likely to in the future. Thus we should publish the CLI as a WG Note titled WebSQLDatabase CLI and curtail active work on this specification in the working group. This is Oracle's official position on this matter. I disagree. I don't understand your reasons. I already sated some reasons in the previous thread about 'parking' the spec. I did not want to belabor the point, since it's clear we don't have consensus within the Working Group on the right way to go. Publishing a WG Note would be appropriate if we had WG consensus to stop work. Understood I don't think we have consensus to do that. This is what I am trying to bring about. See the reasoning in my original email. It would help if you can respond to the three points why I think we have reached the end of the road. I think that the three possibilities you listed are: From your message it is clear that you are not willing to refute any of the points. That is a good start. - Not an exhaustive enumeration of the possibilities. (I realize that at this point, to convincingly show that a good SQL dialect spec is possible will require actually doing it; I'm not sure how or when that will happen but I am looking into it.) You have not provided a logical explanation of why my list is not exhaustive. Can you show what is left out? - Not sufficient reason to stop work, given that we have multiple willing implementors and so far no problems in practice. More than simply a existential implementation proof is necessary to continue work on WebDatabase. I note that there is a difference between an implementable spec and a public standard. Neither your nor anyone else has made a convincing argument about how WebDatabase will lead to a legal public standard, i.e., be capable of supporting multiple independent implementations. I welcome you to prove me wrong. Furthermore, stopping work would do practical harm: I understand that a lot of good work went on in to WebDatabase as well as the implementations thereof. It is another matter that this effort was misguided from the beginning. Consequentially, WebDatabase doesn't stand a practical chance at becoming a standard. Therefore, we do not see any harm caused by stopping work. In fact, I find it harmful to continue efforts in this direction. - A WG Note would stop work without producing a test suite, thus harming interoperability. Interoperability should only matter if you care for multiple _independent_ implementations. You have already acknowledged in prior emails that this is unlikely to happen, ergo lack of a test suite does no harm. - A WG Note would leave us with no clear process to fix problems found in the spec in the course of implementation. The WG Note is dissuading implementors to go forward with this technique. Therefore, there is no need to fix problems. In any case, no one seems interested in solving the real problem - lack of an interoperable SQL. - A WG Note is harder to resurrect in case of new info than a stalled Working Draft; it would require essentially a new FPWD. The rate at which FPWDs are produced in this WG, this seems like a marginal issue. - It's likely that Web Database implementors will at some point want to add
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database implementations (Google, Opera, perhaps others who have not spoken up yet) take the position that they would be like to end work on Web Database at the W3C, then I'm fine with publishing it as a Note (and possibly continuing work as a WHATWG or webkit.org spec). Until then, I would prefer to see work continue here. I agree. I don't get the sudden rush to end this as WG item. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database implementations (Google, Opera, perhaps others who have not spoken up yet) take the position that they would be like to end work on Web Database at the W3C, then I'm fine with publishing it as a Note (and possibly continuing work as a WHATWG or webkit.org spec). Until then, I would prefer to see work continue here. I agree. I don't get the sudden rush to end this as WG item. Agreed. There are many unfortunate aspects to WebDatabase, but it's not going away any time soon. Lets re-examine this once we have some implementational experience with WebSimpleDB (or whatever it's called these days).
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak m...@apple.com wrote: Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database implementations (Google, Opera What they are going to ship is mostly the same implementation as yours. It sounds like Opera intends to use the same database engine, but I would be very surprised if they used any of our code that implements the API, threading, query management, etc. As I've mentioned before, that is a substantial amount of code, and is the part that implements what the Web Database actually specifies. But I agree that it's premature to abandon WebDatabase. You should have a chance to spec out the SQL dialect. There is negligible risk of anyone significant implementing WebDatabase unaware of the objections. There is a greater risk that authors will come to depend on it because they think it's headed for spec status, but implementations and marketing will encourage that anyway. Some authors have already come to depend on it without really caring about the future or present spec status. I don't think we can stuff that genie back in the bottle. Regards, Maciej
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Hi guys, I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on this specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it out for last call. (2) While good work has gone into the IDL/ JavaScript Call Level Interface (CLI), we have made no progress on its SQL language specification and are not likely to in the future. Thus we should publish the CLI as a WG Note titled WebSQLDatabase CLI and curtail active work on this specification in the working group. This is Oracle's official position on this matter. I disagree. Publishing a WG Note would be appropriate if we had WG consensus to stop work. I don't think we have consensus to do that. I also don't think we have consensus to proceed to the next step (Last Call). The right maturity level to represent this condition would be Working Draft. Regards, Maciej
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Hi guys, I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on this specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it out for last call. (2) While good work has gone into the IDL/ JavaScript Call Level Interface (CLI), we have made no progress on its SQL language specification and are not likely to in the future. Thus we should publish the CLI as a WG Note titled WebSQLDatabase CLI and curtail active work on this specification in the working group. This is Oracle's official position on this matter. I disagree. I don't understand your reasons. Publishing a WG Note would be appropriate if we had WG consensus to stop work. Understood I don't think we have consensus to do that. This is what I am trying to bring about. See the reasoning in my original email. It would help if you can respond to the three points why I think we have reached the end of the road. I also don't think we have consensus to proceed to the next step (Last Call). The right maturity level to represent this condition would be Working Draft. Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Hi guys, I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on this specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it out for last call. (2) While good work has gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call Level Interface (CLI), we have made no progress on its SQL language specification and are not likely to in the future. Thus we should publish the CLI as a WG Note titled WebSQLDatabase CLI and curtail active work on this specification in the working group. This is Oracle's official position on this matter. I disagree. I don't understand your reasons. I already sated some reasons in the previous thread about 'parking' the spec. I did not want to belabor the point, since it's clear we don't have consensus within the Working Group on the right way to go. Publishing a WG Note would be appropriate if we had WG consensus to stop work. Understood I don't think we have consensus to do that. This is what I am trying to bring about. See the reasoning in my original email. It would help if you can respond to the three points why I think we have reached the end of the road. I think that the three possibilities you listed are: - Not an exhaustive enumeration of the possibilities. (I realize that at this point, to convincingly show that a good SQL dialect spec is possible will require actually doing it; I'm not sure how or when that will happen but I am looking into it.) - Not sufficient reason to stop work, given that we have multiple willing implementors and so far no problems in practice. Furthermore, stopping work would do practical harm: - A WG Note would stop work without producing a test suite, thus harming interoperability. - A WG Note would leave us with no clear process to fix problems found in the spec in the course of implementation. - A WG Note is harder to resurrect in case of new info than a stalled Working Draft; it would require essentially a new FPWD. - It's likely that Web Database implementors will at some point want to add features, and a WG Note does not provide a suitable path for doing that. And on the flip side, keeping the spec at Working Draft maturity will not harm anyone who is not interested in it. In brief, I do not find your arguments persuasive. I think there are reasons to continue working. I don't expect my reasons to be persuasive to everyone; clearly something will have to change for the Working Group to have consensus on the best path forward. Regards, Maciej
Re: Let's turn WebDatabase into a WG Note
On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:26 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: On Nov 17, 2009, at 9:34 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote: Hi guys, I've been thinking about the WebDatabase specification [1] and I've come to two conclusions. (1) We are miles away from consensus on this specification, and, hence, we should _not_ consider putting it out for last call. (2) While good work has gone into the IDL/JavaScript Call Level Interface (CLI), we have made no progress on its SQL language specification and are not likely to in the future. Thus we should publish the CLI as a WG Note titled WebSQLDatabase CLI and curtail active work on this specification in the working group. This is Oracle's official position on this matter. I disagree. I don't understand your reasons. I already sated some reasons in the previous thread about 'parking' the spec. I did not want to belabor the point, since it's clear we don't have consensus within the Working Group on the right way to go. Publishing a WG Note would be appropriate if we had WG consensus to stop work. Understood I don't think we have consensus to do that. This is what I am trying to bring about. See the reasoning in my original email. It would help if you can respond to the three points why I think we have reached the end of the road. I think that the three possibilities you listed are: From your message it is clear that you are not willing to refute any of the points. That is a good start. - Not an exhaustive enumeration of the possibilities. (I realize that at this point, to convincingly show that a good SQL dialect spec is possible will require actually doing it; I'm not sure how or when that will happen but I am looking into it.) You have not provided a logical explanation of why my list is not exhaustive. Can you show what is left out? - Not sufficient reason to stop work, given that we have multiple willing implementors and so far no problems in practice. More than simply a existential implementation proof is necessary to continue work on WebDatabase. I note that there is a difference between an implementable spec and a public standard. Neither your nor anyone else has made a convincing argument about how WebDatabase will lead to a legal public standard, i.e., be capable of supporting multiple independent implementations. I welcome you to prove me wrong. Furthermore, stopping work would do practical harm: I understand that a lot of good work went on in to WebDatabase as well as the implementations thereof. It is another matter that this effort was misguided from the beginning. Consequentially, WebDatabase doesn't stand a practical chance at becoming a standard. Therefore, we do not see any harm caused by stopping work. In fact, I find it harmful to continue efforts in this direction. - A WG Note would stop work without producing a test suite, thus harming interoperability. Interoperability should only matter if you care for multiple _independent_ implementations. You have already acknowledged in prior emails that this is unlikely to happen, ergo lack of a test suite does no harm. - A WG Note would leave us with no clear process to fix problems found in the spec in the course of implementation. The WG Note is dissuading implementors to go forward with this technique. Therefore, there is no need to fix problems. In any case, no one seems interested in solving the real problem - lack of an interoperable SQL. - A WG Note is harder to resurrect in case of new info than a stalled Working Draft; it would require essentially a new FPWD. The rate at which FPWDs are produced in this WG, this seems like a marginal issue. - It's likely that Web Database implementors will at some point want to add features, and a WG Note does not provide a suitable path for doing that. Again, it is not my intention to convey that WebDatabase is _anything_ other than a passing thought. This is the purpose of the WG Note and, hence, this is a non-issue. And on the flip side, keeping the spec at Working Draft maturity will not harm anyone who is not interested in it. I disagree. WebDatabase is causing real harm to everyone who is not interested in it, which at this point is a large number of members of this WG. In brief, I do not find your arguments persuasive. If you are not willing to be persuaded, then that's your choice. I think there are reasons to continue working. However, these reasons are not logical. I don't expect my reasons to be persuasive to everyone; clearly something will have to change for the Working Group to have consensus on the best path forward. I do expect to arrive at consensus because we should not be spending time on making a standard out of something that is inherently not standardizable in finite
