There's enough security/privacy issues with cookies, and those are simple text strings. Imagine the issues a nefarious mind could cause with a DB.
W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
11–20 of 87 posts
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#12There's enough security/privacy issues with cookies, and those are simple text strings. Imagine the issues a nefarious mind could cause with a DB.
Just imagine how scary it wouldn't be if you understood the security implications and risks of cookies compared to the lack there of for a local browser db storage....
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#13Probably a good thing. The most complex part of Web SQL amounted to "Whatever SQLite implements", neither Mozilla nor Microsoft supported it making the standard effectively irrelevent, and I remain thoroughly unconvinced that providing an extremely thin JavaScript API to an SQL-driven database is an elegant solution to this particular problem. Presumably the W3C have decided to favour IndexedDB instead, which solves…
The most complex part of Web SQL effectively amounted to "Whatever SQLite implemented"
Which is one of the most tested, most utilized, most known pieces of code used among modern software. Saying "reference it" is entirely rational. And really the ludicrous notion that documenting its behaviors is unfathomably difficult is so asinine that it demolishes that line of argument.
neither Mozilla nor Microsoft supported it
Microsoft doesn't REALLY support either: Does IE9 have IndexedDB? Not that I'm aware of.
Microsoft's angle regarding Web Databases was nothing more than "I don't know...that looks mighty uppity for a web app..."
Mozilla is taking a very myopic, "high-road" approach that is similar to, and less justifiable, the whole h.264 debacle: Everyone loses, but someone gets to hold their head up high.
Further, Chrome, Safari, Opera, other...none of them support IndexedDB, so as a standard it is effectively irrelevant.
Presumably the W3C have decided to favour IndexedDB instead, which solves many of the same problems in a much more elegant, simple and well-specified fashion.
Ha ha ha!
The IndexedDB spec right now has incredible gaps that make it close to useless. The braintrust at Mozilla that are responsible for it can't stop themselves from saying "CouchDB" long enough to actually work on it, it seems.
I think they got caught up in the whole NoSQL thing. So much so that they now seriously advocate that libraries should pop up inefficiently implementing SQL on top of IndexedDB, which is just saddening.
But aside from that, rah!
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#14Probably a good thing. The most complex part of Web SQL amounted to "Whatever SQLite implements", neither Mozilla nor Microsoft supported it making the standard effectively irrelevent, and I remain thoroughly unconvinced that providing an extremely thin JavaScript API to an SQL-driven database is an elegant solution to this particular problem. Presumably the W3C have decided to favour IndexedDB instead, which solves…
The most complex part of Web SQL effectively amounted to "Whatever SQLite implemented" Which is one of the most tested, most utilized, most known pieces of code used among modern software. Saying "reference it" is entirely rational. And really the ludicrous notion that documenting its behaviors is unfathomably difficult is so asinine that it demolishes that line of argument. neither Mozilla nor Microsoft supported it…
Which is one of the most tested, most utilized, most known pieces of code used among modern software.
Sounds like Microsoft Windows to me :)
I think that SQLite is a really nice database. But just because SQLite would work in the browser, doesn't mean W3C shouldn't try to do something better.
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#15Am I the only one that's sad about this?
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#16Probably a good thing. The most complex part of Web SQL amounted to "Whatever SQLite implements", neither Mozilla nor Microsoft supported it making the standard effectively irrelevent, and I remain thoroughly unconvinced that providing an extremely thin JavaScript API to an SQL-driven database is an elegant solution to this particular problem. Presumably the W3C have decided to favour IndexedDB instead, which solves…
The most complex part of Web SQL effectively amounted to "Whatever SQLite implemented" Which is one of the most tested, most utilized, most known pieces of code used among modern software. Saying "reference it" is entirely rational. And really the ludicrous notion that documenting its behaviors is unfathomably difficult is so asinine that it demolishes that line of argument. neither Mozilla nor Microsoft supported it…
>I think they got caught up in the whole NoSQL thing.
I was hesitating saying something to that effect in my comment, but seeing as someone else has broken the ice, what the hell:
This whole IndexedDB push by Mozilla has seemed a side-effect of the SQL/NoSQL hubbub, and not much else. There's legitimate use for IndexedDB, and it does a couple things better than WebDatabases do, and it's closer to writing JavaScript... but there's almost no reason to not implement WebDatabase by dropping an SQLite engine into your system. And why the hell couldn't they have picked something that already exists to a certain degree, rather than making everyone start from scratch in optimizations?
edit: to go a step further:
>Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable. Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways.
They sound kinda like they're complaining about all this, in a "you'll see! You'll all see!" sort of way. I think it's a power-struggle thing; there's a standard on the web they don't and can't control, because everyone went ahead and agreed on something without them while they were busy making it way more opaque and complicated than it is / needs to be.
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#17Why, again, was this needed? HTML5 is already looking like a security and management shitstorm; anything that makes it simpler is fine by me.
How is a domain-locked local SQL database a security shitstorm?
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#18If the SQL guys were serious about their shit they should have patch some JavaScript at the syntax level.
Instead they pushed/lobbied for the usual broken binding that is the very reason SQL is so contreversed: impedance mismatch.
Of course, hacking a javascript parser to introduce some SQL semantic in it is not exactly "easy"
Basically, the initiative was doomed from day one, what a waste of time...
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#19Am I the only one that's sad about this?
I am sad only to extend that there is some juice in SQL that the SQL people where unable to inject into JavaScript, either because of lazyness or more probably because they will never compromise at the syntax level when times come to reduce the impedance mismatch between two different language syntaxes.
Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database
#20I think that's a great news. HTML5 adds lots of complexity in the browser, and yet don't address most of the fundamental problems of HTML: security, complexity. Web SQL was another step in the wrong direction. Local storage wont go away. I hope Web SQL will be replaced by something "better" and more straightforward, A simple key-value database would be great.
> A simple key-value database would be great. That's exactly it: http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/
A NoSQL win