On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:00:21 +0100, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Shane Harrelson wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but would
https://code.google.com/p/csharp-sqlite/ count as an independent
implementation of the SQLite SQL syntax?
So no, it would not c
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Shane Harrelson wrote:
> Not to beat a dead horse, but would https://code.google.com/p/csharp-sqlite/
> count as an independent implementation of the SQLite SQL syntax?
>
Using an unmaintained project as a ways of advancing as specification would
ki
> Not to beat a dead horse, but would https://code.google.com/p/csharp-sqlite/
> count as an independent implementation of the SQLite SQL syntax?
>
I don't understand: is it a port of SQLite to managed code, or is it a
reimplementation from scratch?
--
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y se
9/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
>>>>
>>>> Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification
On 10/1/13 8:46 AM, ext David Bruant wrote:
Le 27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
wrote:
Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
I would like to request that you make the
Le 27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
wrote:
Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
I would like to request that you make the W3C Web SQL Database
specification active
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> 2. *Two* independent, production quality, database implementations
>> being willing to implement exactly that SQL dialect. Not a subset of
>> it, and not a superset of it.
>
> This
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 2. *Two* independent, production quality, database implementations
> being willing to implement exactly that SQL dialect. Not a subset of
> it, and not a superset of it.
>
This is an overstatement. It's not required that there be two
imple
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
wrote:
> Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
>
> Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
>
> I would like to request that you make the W3C Web SQL Database
> specification active again. The Web SQL Data
On Friday, September 27, 2013 at 3:07 PM, pira...@gmail.com wrote:
> I agree with Marcos. Also, I thinks IndexedDB fits better as a
> Javascript database working in a pure object oriented way. I don't
> think WebSQL it's absolutely bad, relational databases usually are
> easier to work with, but
>
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Michael Fitchett wrote:
>
>> Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
>>
>> Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
>>
>> I would like to request that you make the W3C Web SQL Database specificati
* Michael Fitchett wrote:
>Since lack of definition is the issue, I would like to recommend a remedy.
>I know SQL experts and great documentation writers who I would gladly hire
>to further define the Web SQL Database specification and fill in the
>missing SQL definition. Is this something that wou
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Michael Fitchett wrote:
> Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
>
> Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
>
> I would like to request that you make the W3C Web SQL Database specification
> active
Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
*Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active*
I would like to request that you make the W3C Web SQL Database
specification active again. The Web SQL Database Specification enables
developers to build web-based applications that can store
14 matches
Mail list logo
