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
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)
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 sh
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 f
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] an
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
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
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 fin
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
> 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
On Nov 18, 2009, at 10:16 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:35:57 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak 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 l
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak 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.
But I agree that it's premature to abandon WebDatabase. You should h
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
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
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:13:20 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
On Nov 18, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak
wrote:
Further: if the other vendors planning to ship Web Database
implementations (Google, Opera
What they are going to s
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
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman
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
On Friday, November 20, 2009 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman
> 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 see
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Charles McCathieNevile
wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:38 +0100, Adrian Bateman
> 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
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 goin
Hi, Folks-
Just a clarification about what the W3C Process Document [1] says about
one point of this debate...
Maciej Stachowiak wrote (on 11/18/09 1:58 AM):
Furthermore, stopping work would do practical harm:
- A WG Note would stop work without producing a test suite, thus harming
interoper
18 matches
Mail list logo