27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
michael.fitch...@spotsync.com 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
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 ser
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
On Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:00:21 +0100, Marcos Caceres w...@marcosc.com 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
Le 27/09/2013 23:23, Jonas Sicking a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
michael.fitch...@spotsync.com 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
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
michael.fitch...@spotsync.com wrote:
Dear Members of the W3C Consortium::
Regarding: Making the W3C Web SQL Database Specification Active
I would like
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
2. *Two* independent, production quality, database implementations
being willing to implement exactly that SQL dialect. Not a subset of
it, and not a
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 again. The Web SQL Database
* 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 would
:
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 again. The Web SQL Database Specification
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 a
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Michael Fitchett
michael.fitch...@spotsync.com 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
[ I don't know why this e-mail dated 31-March-2011 just showed up in my
Inbox today ... ]
On Mar/31/2011 9:25 AM, ext Sylvain GREZE wrote:
Hello there,
I write this email to let you know about our surprise when we saw that
the Web SQL Database is no longer part of the html5 specification.
13 matches
Mail list logo