Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

In fairness, and perspective, GLSL is a big leap, adding one more language with neat features like swizzle and matrix math. SQL is too big a leap for the time being. I'd like to see a continued effort at 'borrowing' from our new web family member, glsl. Typed arrays are wonderful. There's been

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/4/11 10:15 AM, Ryan Fugger wrote: That's not the only reason. Mozilla laid out others ten months ago: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/ Mozilla's plan appears to be to implement IndexedDB on top of SQLite, This is not a plan so much

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/4/2011 10:15 AM, Ryan Fugger wrote: That's not the only reason. Mozilla laid out others ten months ago: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/ Mozilla's plan appears to be to implement IndexedDB on top of SQLite, and then encourage developer

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

> That's not the only reason. Mozilla laid out others ten months ago: > https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/ Mozilla's plan appears to be to implement IndexedDB on top of SQLite, and then encourage developers to build SQL in javascript on top of

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/6/11 10:30 AM, Joran Greef wrote: >> >> If Mozilla enjoys using the latest version of SQLite (and I assume they >> are not planning on replacing internal SQLite embeddings with IndexedDB - >> not at this stage at least), then web develop

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 06 Apr 2011, at 7:42 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/6/11 10:30 AM, Joran Greef wrote: >> If Mozilla enjoys using the latest version of SQLite (and I assume they are >> not planning on replacing internal SQLite embeddings with IndexedDB - not at >> this stage at least), then web developers de

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/6/11 10:30 AM, Joran Greef wrote: If Mozilla enjoys using the latest version of SQLite (and I assume they are not planning on replacing internal SQLite embeddings with IndexedDB - not at this stage at least), then web developers deserve the latest version. This is not obvious a priori, f

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 06 Apr 2011, at 7:24 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > When a security bug is encountered, either the browsers update to a > new version of sqlite (if it's already been fixed), thus potentially > breaking sites, or they patch sqlite and then upgrade to the patched > version, thus potentially breaking

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 06 Apr 2011, at 7:14 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > On 4/6/2011 9:44 AM, Joran Greef wrote: >> We only need one fixed version of SQLite to be shipped across Chrome, >> Safari, Opera, Firefox and IE. That in itself would represent a tremendous >> goal for IndexedDB to target and to try and achieve

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > On 4/6/2011 9:44 AM, Joran Greef wrote: >> We only need one fixed version of SQLite to be shipped across Chrome, >> Safari, Opera, Firefox and IE. That in itself would represent a tremendous >> goal for IndexedDB to target and to try and achi

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/6/2011 10:06 AM, Joran Greef wrote: I bring up the iPad example because I had experience with a LocalStorage implementation (I think it was Safari) loading the contents of LocalStorage into memory synchronously on first access, blocking the UI thread. I am probably wrong on this one but I

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/6/2011 9:44 AM, Joran Greef wrote: We only need one fixed version of SQLite to be shipped across Chrome, Safari, Opera, Firefox and IE. That in itself would represent a tremendous goal for IndexedDB to target and to try and achieve. When it actually does, and surpasses the fixed version o

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 06 Apr 2011, at 6:49 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > On 4/4/2011 10:18 AM, Joran Greef wrote: >> How would you create an index on an existing object store in IndexedDB >> containing more than 50,000 objects on an iPad, without incurring any object >> deserialization/serialization overhead, without

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/1/2011 3:23 PM, Keean Schupke wrote: I would be interested in this. What would need to be done to make this a Firefox plugin? I've done XPCOM stuff before in xulrunner if that's any help. I think that this list isn't the best place to discuss this, so let's take this offline :) Cheers, S

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/4/2011 10:18 AM, Joran Greef wrote: How would you create an index on an existing object store in IndexedDB containing more than 50,000 objects on an iPad, without incurring any object deserialization/serialization overhead, without being an order of magnitude slower than SQLite, and witho

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 06 Apr 2011, at 6:26 PM, Shawn Wilsher wrote: > On 4/4/2011 8:07 AM, Joran Greef wrote: >> SQLite has a fantastic track record of maintaining backwards compatibility. > Sort of. They didn't between SQLite 2 and SQLite 3. There also have been > some (albeit minor) backwards compatibility issu

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/4/2011 10:28 AM, Joran Greef wrote: Do you think it would be wise then to advocate doing away with SQLite before IndexedDB has had a chance to prove itself? Surely two competing APIs would be the fastest way to bring IndexedDB up to speed? Who is advocating doing away with it? Note that I

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/4/2011 8:07 AM, Joran Greef wrote: SQLite has a fantastic track record of maintaining backwards compatibility. Sort of. They didn't between SQLite 2 and SQLite 3. There also have been some (albeit minor) backwards compatibility issues with SQLite 3.x releases. The most serious of which

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Joran Greef wrote: > On 06 Apr 2011, at 8:56 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >>> 1. Treat object values as opaque (necessary to avoid >>> deserialization/serialization overhead, this is mandatory for storing >>> anything over 50,000 objects on a device like an iPad or

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 06 Apr 2011, at 8:56 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> 1. Treat object values as opaque (necessary to avoid >> deserialization/serialization overhead, this is mandatory for storing >> anything over 50,000 objects on a device like an iPad or iPhone). > > Please explain this in more detail as I ha

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Joran Greef wrote: > On 06 Apr 2011, at 2:53 AM, Pablo Castro wrote: > >> The goal of IndexedDB has always been to enable things like RelationalDB and >> CouchDB to be built on top, while maintaining a reasonable level of >> functionality for those that wanted to

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 06 Apr 2011, at 2:53 AM, Pablo Castro wrote: > The goal of IndexedDB has always been to enable things like RelationalDB and > CouchDB to be built on top, while maintaining a reasonable level of > functionality for those that wanted to use it directly. I really like the > idea of thinking of

RE: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Keean Schupke Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:17 PM >> Something like RelationalDB gives you the power of a relational-db with no >> dependence on a specific implementation of SQL, so it would be compatible

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4 April 2011 22:55, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > There are several reasons why we don't want to rely exclusively on > > SQLite, other than solely W3C formalia. > > > > First of all, what should we do once the SQLite team releases a new > > ver

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > There are several reasons why we don't want to rely exclusively on > SQLite, other than solely W3C formalia. > > First of all, what should we do once the SQLite team releases a new > version which has some modifications in its SQL dialect? We

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4 April 2011 22:09, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 4/4/11 9:25 AM, Keean Schupke wrote: > >> SQL is a standard language (or API) for talking to databases. >> > > It's a family of languages/APIs, which all have slightly different > behaviors. > > > Why should a developer need to learn a different A

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/4/11 9:25 AM, Keean Schupke wrote: SQL is a standard language (or API) for talking to databases. It's a family of languages/APIs, which all have slightly different behaviors. Why should a developer need to learn a different API for each database. They already do, sadly Not compl

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4 April 2011 20:58, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2011, Joran Greef wrote: > > On 04 Apr 2011, at 7:28 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > > >> the biggest bottleneck here in the current implementation would be the > transaction overhead on a database this size, which is because of > pe

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Monday, April 4, 2011, Joran Greef wrote: > On 04 Apr 2011, at 7:28 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > >> the biggest bottleneck here in the current implementation would be the >> transaction overhead on a database this size, which is because of >> performance problems in sqlite which is underlying t

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 04 Apr 2011, at 7:28 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > the biggest bottleneck here in the current implementation would be the > transaction overhead on a database this size, which is because of performance > problems in sqlite which is underlying the implementation. sqlite can't fix > this, it's cu

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 04 Apr 2011, at 6:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > It's new. Do you think it would be wise then to advocate doing away with SQLite before IndexedDB has had a chance to prove itself? Surely two competing APIs would be the fastest way to bring IndexedDB up to speed? > Ironically, the poor perfo

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

Joran Greef April 4, 2011 April 4, 201110:18 AM On 04 Apr 2011, at 6:10 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: it's not very hard to write

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 04 Apr 2011, at 6:10 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > it's not very hard to write the abstraction you're talking about on top of > IndexedDB, and until you do it i'm going to have a hard time taking you > seriously because it's clearly doable. You assume I have not written the abstraction I am ta

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

I would point out that RelationalDB is relationally complete and the api does not depend on the sqlite spec at all. Cheers Keean On Apr 1, 2011 8:58 PM, "Jonas Sicking" wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: >>> Lastly, some vendors have expressed unwillingness to embed S

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4 April 2011 16:04, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Joran Greef wrote: > > On 04 Apr 2011, at 4:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> Hence it would still be the case that we would be relying on the > >> SQLite developers to maintain a stable SQL interpretation... > > > > S

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

Some thoughts: On 4 April 2011 16:10, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > i've mostly stayed out of this thread because i felt like i'd just being > fanning the flames but i really can't stay out anymore. > > databases are more that SQL, always have been. > > SQL is a DSL for relational database access. all

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Joran Greef wrote: > On 04 Apr 2011, at 4:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> Hence it would still be the case that we would be relying on the >> SQLite developers to maintain a stable SQL interpretation... > > SQLite has a fantastic track record of maintaining backwards

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

i've mostly stayed out of this thread because i felt like i'd just being fanning the flames but i really can't stay out anymore. databases are more that SQL, always have been. SQL is a DSL for relational database access. all implementations of SQL have a similar set of tools they implement first

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4 April 2011 15:55, Keean Schupke wrote: > Yes, it already has well defined set operations. Solid is a matter of > testing by enough people (and if you wanted to try it and feed back that > would be a start). Fast should not be a problem, as the SQL database does > all the heavy lifting. > > I

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

Yes, it already has well defined set operations. Solid is a matter of testing by enough people (and if you wanted to try it and feed back that would be a start). Fast should not be a problem, as the SQL database does all the heavy lifting. In more detail, Codd's six primitive operators are project

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 04 Apr 2011, at 5:26 PM, Keean Schupke wrote: > This is ignoring the possibility that something like RelationalDB could be > used, where a well defined common subset of SQL can be used (and I use > well-defined in the formal sense). This would allow a relatively thin wrapper > on top of most

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

This is ignoring the possibility that something like RelationalDB could be used, where a well defined common subset of SQL can be used (and I use well-defined in the formal sense). This would allow a relatively thin wrapper on top of most SQL implementations and would allow SQLite (or BDB) to be us

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 04 Apr 2011, at 4:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Hence it would still be the case that we would be relying on the > SQLite developers to maintain a stable SQL interpretation... SQLite has a fantastic track record of maintaining backwards compatibility. IndexedDB has as yet no track record, no

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Saturday, April 2, 2011, Joran Greef wrote: >> I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of putting the >> responsibility of the health of the web in the hands of one project. >> In fact, one of the main reasons I started working at Mozilla was to >> prevent this. >> >> / Jonas > > I agree wi

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/2/2011 7:56 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Keean Schupke > wrote: Infact now BDB supports the SQLite-3.0 API, you can have two implementation that conform to the same API. So the original reason for abandoning WebSQL seems no lo

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

Pity. Anyway RelationalDB defines its API without reference to the underlying SQL or non-SQL database... So as a candidate for replacing WebSQL, it does not suffer from that problem. Cheers, Keean. On 2 April 2011 14:56, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Keean Schupke w

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Keean Schupke wrote: > Infact now BDB supports the SQLite-3.0 API, you can have two implementation > that conform to the same API. So the original reason for abandoning WebSQL > seems no longer valid. As there are now more than one implementation of the > SQLite-3.

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 2 April 2011 08:36, Joran Greef wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 00:42:40, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > > You can certainly ask if they're interested in doing so, not for "our" > > benefit (whoever "our" means), but for the benefit of the Web as a whole, > > and there's nothing at all rude in askin

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

> I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of putting the > responsibility of the health of the web in the hands of one project. > In fact, one of the main reasons I started working at Mozilla was to > prevent this. > > / Jonas I agree with you. All the more reason to support both WebSQL and I

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 00:42:40, Glenn Maynard wrote: > You can certainly ask if they're interested in doing so, not for "our" > benefit (whoever "our" means), but for the benefit of the Web as a whole, > and there's nothing at all rude in asking. I'd say the opposite: it's rude > to assume they

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

I agree that it'd be best to have a spec independent of database platform, which is why I was asking about an idea along the lines of RelationalDB or the example I gave in the email which initiated this discussion, both of which are entirely abstracted from th

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Friday, April 1, 2011, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > >> I don't find this compelling, because it assumes that the release > >> methodology of SQLite is fixed in stone. > > It would be incredibly rude of us to force an independent team of > develop

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > I don't find this compelling, because it assumes that the release > > methodology of SQLite is fixed in stone. > > It would be incredibly rude of us to force an independent team of > developers to change development practices for our benefit

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > First of all, what should we do once the SQLite team releases a new > > version which has some modifications in its SQL dialect? We generally > > always need to embed the latest version of the

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On Apr/1/2011 3:39 PM, ext Glenn Maynard wrote: > > If SQLite was to be used as a web standard, I'd hope that it wouldn't show > > up in a spec as simply "do what SQLite does", but as a complete spec of > > SQLite's behavior. > > FYI, the Web SQL Databas

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

Hi Shawn I would be interested in this. What would need to be done to make this a Firefox plugin? I've done XPCOM stuff before in xulrunner if that's any help. Cheers, Keean On Apr 1, 2011 6:09 PM, "Shawn Wilsher" wrote: > On 4/1/2011 5:40 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote: >> Are there any browser vend

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:> Creating such a spec would be a formidable task, of course. > Indeed. One that the SQL community has failed in doing so far. And > they have a lot more experience with SQL than we do. > That suggests a very different rationale for not using S

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: >> Lastly, some vendors have expressed unwillingness to embed SQLite for >> legal reasons. Embedding other peoples code definitely exposes you to >> risk of copyright and patent lawsuits. While I can't say that I fully >> agree with this reason

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Apr/1/2011 3:39 PM, ext Glenn Maynard wrote: If SQLite was to be used as a web standard, I'd hope that it wouldn't show up in a spec as simply "do what SQLite does", but as a complete spec of SQLite's behavior. FYI, the Web SQL Database NOTE says: [[ http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-webdatab

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > There are several reasons why we don't want to rely exclusively on > SQLite, other than solely W3C formalia. > > First of all, what should we do once the SQLite team releases a new > version which has some modifications in its SQL dialect? We

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> No, it actually sounds like a success; it prevented a "specification" being >> created which would have been tied to a particular implementation, no matter >> how "widely-deployed". >>

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/1/2011 9:39 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: IE6 is closed-source software written for a single platform. SQLite is in the public domain, works for all major operating systems and lots of minor ones, and is already used (I think?) by every major browser except IE. That makes all the difference. Th

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 4/1/2011 5:40 AM, Nathan Kitchen wrote: Are there any browser vendor representatives on the mailing list who would care to comment on the criteria for implementing something akin to Keean's RelationalDB idea? What would need to be in place to start work

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > So if the only objection to WebSQL is "there's no way we're going to > get a formal spec or two interoperable implementations", I'd really > encourage objectors to step back and ask themselves why they *want* a > formal spec and two interoperab

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > No, it actually sounds like a success; it prevented a "specification" being > created which would have been tied to a particular implementation, no matter > how "widely-deployed". > > For comparison, IE6 was very widely deployed circa 2002.

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

Are there any browser vendor representatives on the mailing list who would care to comment on the criteria for implementing something akin to Keean's RelationalDB idea? What would need to be in place to start work on such an implementation? I can think of a

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 31 March 2011 19:08, Joran Greef wrote: > > This is painful to read. WebSQL development died because SQLite, the > most widely-deployed database software in the world, was too good? That > sounds like a catastrophic failure of the W3C process. > > > > -- > > Glenn Maynard > > Hear. > > I am

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

> This is painful to read. WebSQL development died because SQLite, the most > widely-deployed database software in the world, was too good? That sounds > like a catastrophic failure of the W3C process. > > -- > Glenn Maynard Hear. I am starting to think that Mozilla will step up and provide

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

What they mean is that defining a generic subset of SQL with one implementation was considered too difficult. With more than one implementation a common subset becomes easier for the standard writers to extract. With RelationalDB I have taken a completely different approach. We started from relati

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

No real reason - just trying to implement a minimal framework. Date objects would be a definite must have going forward. I was interested in trying to get something like this standardised, as I believe it has none of the issues that stopped WebSQL, as it defines a complete relational API independe

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 3/31/11 12:06 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: This is painful to read. WebSQL development died because SQLite, the most widely-deployed database software in the world, was too good? That sounds like a catastrophic failure of the W3C process. No, it actually sounds like a success; it prevented a "

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Benjamin Poulain < benjamin.poul...@nokia.com> wrote: > WebSQL in its current form is pretty dead, see > http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ : > Beware. This specification is no longer in active maintenance and the > Web Applications Working Group does not intend to

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

That's nice, pretty much what I was thinking but somewhat more complete : ) Is there not a w3 group progressing something like this? And if not, who would need to be lobbied to get one started?! As an aside, I note you didn't implement "date" as a supported data type. Was that a conscious decision

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

On 03/31/2011 05:19 PM, ext Nathan Kitchen wrote: I've been watching discussions on IndexedDB for a while now, and wondered if anyone would mind spending a few moments to explain how IndexedDB is related (or not) to WebSQL. Is IndexedDB seen as replacing the functionality originally offered by We

Re: [WebSQL] Any future plans, or has IndexedDB replaced WebSQL?

Have a look at my RelationalDB API https://github.com/keean/RelationalDB In particular examples/candy.html A lot of work went into the underlying concepts - Its work originally published by myself and others at the 2004 Haskell Workshop, and follows on from HaskellDB which was the original inspi