3 ms·
The sad thing is, there was this idea for WebSQL ages ago and it would have solved this problem AND made database-backed apps easy to write, plus firefox and ch
by red_admiral 10y ago
The sad thing is, there was this idea for WebSQL ages ago and it would have solved this problem AND made database-backed apps easy to write, plus firefox and chrome already use sqlite internally so you could reuse that as the engine. Apparently it wasn't hip enough for the NoSQL folks though.
- dlbucci 10y agoActually, the issue (as I understand it) was that a web standard requires at least three different implementations (otherwise, it's less of a standard and more of a plugin). Chrome basically exposed SQLite to web apps, which meant other browsers would have needed to reimplement SQLite in order for WebSQL to become a standard. That said, I do wish they had gone the SQL route vs NoSQL.
- flanbiscuit 10y agoMozilla talked about why they didn't support it here: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis-and-the-road-to-indexeddb/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/06/beyond-html5-database-apis...
- gsnedders 10y agoTwo implementations, not three. It was originally implemented in WebKit, rather than Chrome (heck, it predates Chrome being public). As far as I'm aware, there were lots of politics behind closed doors (i.e., inside the companies involved) that resulted in there being no attempt to even specify a dialect of SQL (whether it were SQLite or otherwise), hence the inevitable failure of any SQL-based standard. Something not-SQL was the best that could get standardised, sadly.