Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

w3.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#71

Post by sid0 »

wmf wrote: post #69
sid0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if everyone used SQLite there would be no second implementation, which is something that is necessary for a proposed standard to become an actual standard.

That's a pre-open-source view of standards. We don't have multiple implementations of Python or Linux, yet they can be widely relied on.

It's the current W3C view of standards. Also

* of course we have multiple implementations of python: CPython, PyPy, IronPython...

* Python isn't a W3C standard, nor does it aim to be one.

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#72

Post by sid0 »

Groxx wrote: post #68
sid0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if everyone used SQLite there would be no second implementation, which is something that is necessary for a proposed standard to become an actual standard.

I believe you, especially as it makes a number of lines I've heard around this make more sense... but why? Especially in this case, where there is a standard and it's already been implemented by several? Is it just pedantry because they don't get to call the shots?

> where there is a standard

There is no standard. There is a proposed standard, but it's failed because it didn't have multiple implementations.

> and it's already been implemented by several

No, it has exactly one implementation: SQLite. SQLite-in-Safari and SQLite-in-Chrome obviously don't count as different implementations.

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#73

Post by carussell »

halo wrote: post #24
ergo98 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The truth is the reason they pointed to SQLite is because the proposed API was so obscenely complicated that it was easier to point to a reference implementation than to accurately specify a standard, which points to a rather fundamental problem with the proposed standard: SQL is too damn complicated, and embedding it in browsers is a bad idea. For a web standard to succeed, you need either Mozilla or Microsoft suppo…

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.

It'd be nice if you'd, you know, qualify this or something.

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#74

Post by wmf »

sid0 wrote: post #71
wmf wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pre-open-source view of standards. We don't have multiple implementations of Python or Linux, yet they can be widely relied on.

It's the current W3C view of standards. Also * of course we have multiple implementations of python: CPython, PyPy, IronPython... * Python isn't a W3C standard, nor does it aim to be one.

Maybe W3C should change, rather than remaining stuck in the early 90s.

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#75

Post by Groxx »

sid0 wrote: post #72
Groxx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you, especially as it makes a number of lines I've heard around this make more sense... but why? Especially in this case, where there is a standard and it's already been implemented by several? Is it just pedantry because they don't get to call the shots?

> where there is a standard There is no standard. There is a proposed standard, but it's failed because it didn't have multiple implementations. > and it's already been implemented by several No, it has exactly one implementation: SQLite. SQLite-in-Safari and SQLite-in-Chrome obviously don't count as different implementations.

It has one implementation implemented identically in more than one browser. SQLite. Which is a standard with an implementation to compare against.

Anyway.

Yes, there is only one implementation, one standard, one non-W3C-spec. Why does it matter to them that there's no competing spec, when they could just support something that is already out there, and can be solved by pointing to http://www.sqlite.org/docs.html ? The API for accessing it is mindlessly simple and small, documenting that would take a day at worst.

It seems they're trying to run it into the ground because they don't control it, because it didn't go through their proper procedure, whereby it must have a competitor.

Why? In what way is this helpful? And if they're not being helpful, what's their purpose? To be dogmatic and prevent good ideas they didn't come up with from spreading?

---

edit:

>The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. Led by Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and CEO Jeffrey Jaffe, W3C's mission is to lead the Web to its full potential. Contact W3C for more information. (from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/)

How does trying to prevent it aid in "lead[ing] the Web to its full potential"?

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#76

Post by sid0 »

wmf wrote: post #74
sid0 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the current W3C view of standards. Also * of course we have multiple implementations of python: CPython, PyPy, IronPython... * Python isn't a W3C standard, nor does it aim to be one.

Maybe W3C should change, rather than remaining stuck in the early 90s.

Well, I think having two implementations is necessary for a "standard" to actually truly be one, because if there's just one then you might as well be standardizing on the implementation rather than on the spec. I don't agree with standardizing on implementations in principle.

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#77

Post by sid0 »

Groxx wrote: post #75
sid0 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where there is a standard There is no standard. There is a proposed standard, but it's failed because it didn't have multiple implementations. > and it's already been implemented by several No, it has exactly one implementation: SQLite. SQLite-in-Safari and SQLite-in-Chrome obviously don't count as different implementations.

It has one implementation implemented identically in more than one browser. SQLite. Which is a standard with an implementation to compare against. Anyway. Yes, there is only one implementation, one standard, one non-W3C-spec. Why does it matter to them that there's no competing spec, when they could just support something that is already out there, and can be solved by pointing to http://www.sqlite.org/docs.html ? Th…

Why does it matter to them that there's no competing spec

Because ALL web standards are standards only because of the fact that there are MULTIPLE implementations. This is a basic principle behind the Web, and making even a single exception leads to a dangerous slippery slope.

It seems they're trying to run it into the ground because they don't control it

No.

because it didn't go through their proper procedure, whereby it must have a competitor.

Yes. In the long term, not having another implementation is a dangerous sign -- it is a sign that developers are incapable of coming up with another implementation. What if SQLite can't be ported to some hypothetical architecture/stack in the future -- for example, a fully managed OS? What is the guarantee that someone will be able to come up with another implementation of the same spec which can run on that OS? At least with multiple implementations you know that the problem is tractable.

Why? In what way is this helpful?

It is helpful because it demonstrates long-term thinking.

And if they're not being helpful, what's their purpose? To be dogmatic and prevent good ideas they didn't come up with from spreading?

No, to think in the longer term than you do.

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#78

Post by Groxx »

sid0 wrote: post #77
Groxx wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has one implementation implemented identically in more than one browser. SQLite. Which is a standard with an implementation to compare against. Anyway. Yes, there is only one implementation, one standard, one non-W3C-spec. Why does it matter to them that there's no competing spec, when they could just support something that is already out there, and can be solved by pointing to http://www.sqlite.org/docs.html ? Th…

Why does it matter to them that there's no competing spec Because ALL web standards are standards only because of the fact that there are MULTIPLE implementations. This is a basic principle behind the Web, and making even a single exception leads to a dangerous slippery slope. It seems they're trying to run it into the ground because they don't control it No. because it didn't go through their proper procedure, where…

And the multiple implementations of IndexedDB are...? (don't actually know. If you do, I'd be interested in links)

Similarly, there are plenty of implementations of SQL out there. They don't count?

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#79

Post by sid0 »

Groxx wrote: post #78
sid0 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter to them that there's no competing spec Because ALL web standards are standards only because of the fact that there are MULTIPLE implementations. This is a basic principle behind the Web, and making even a single exception leads to a dangerous slippery slope. It seems they're trying to run it into the ground because they don't control it No. because it didn't go through their proper procedure, where…

And the multiple implementations of IndexedDB are...? (don't actually know. If you do, I'd be interested in links) Similarly, there are plenty of implementations of SQL out there. They don't count?

And the multiple implementations of IndexedDB are...? (don't actually know. If you do, I'd be interested in links)

There's an early one in Firefox 4 beta right now [1], and an upcoming one in Chrome [2]. Microsoft will probably implement IndexedDB in a future version of IE [3]. (IndexedDB isn't a standard right now either, but it'll be on track to be one once two implementations are complete.)

[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Projects/IndexedDB

[2] http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/indexedd...

[3] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/03/09/working-with-t...

Similarly, there are plenty of implementations of SQL out there. They don't count?

No, since none of them share all the peculiarities of SQLite. For example, SQLite doesn't have type checking, while most other SQL databases do.

Re: W3C Working Group Just Killed Web SQL Database

#80

Post by Groxx »

sid0 wrote: post #79
Groxx wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the multiple implementations of IndexedDB are...? (don't actually know. If you do, I'd be interested in links) Similarly, there are plenty of implementations of SQL out there. They don't count?

And the multiple implementations of IndexedDB are...? (don't actually know. If you do, I'd be interested in links) There's an early one in Firefox 4 beta right now [1], and an upcoming one in Chrome [2]. Microsoft will probably implement IndexedDB in a future version of IE [3]. (IndexedDB isn't a standard right now either, but it'll be on track to be one once two implementations are complete.) [1] https://wiki.mozill…

I don't think any browser shares all the peculiarities of any other browser. That's hardly an argument against there being a W3C spec for HTML, CSS, the DOM, or JavaScript. Why pick on SQL?
Post reply on HN