3 ms·

But isn't "What SQLite does" effectively a standard? It's got a spec AFAIK.

Klathmon 9y ago
A core part of web technologies is the fact that they have multiple competing implementations. For example, javascript changes can't be put into a standard until they have (IIRC) 3 major browsers which implement them. Pinning a standard to a specific implementation (and a specific version) is the opposite of every other web standard. Plus it means that any alternate implementations must reimplement SQLite themselves if they don't want to or can't use SQLite themselves.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  I'm confused about what would be implemented. Is it a database engine that supports the SQL dialect that SQLite uses. In which case, (at least) two browsers have already implemented it, right? If you're referring to SQLite itself being implemented multiple times, I don't understand why that's relevant to Web SQL. You wrote that Web SQL shouldn't be supported, i.e. implemented, until there's a spec. It seems like there's a 'spec' now, if not an official formal spec. But now you're claiming that Web SQL can't be a standard because there aren't multiple implementations. But it certainly seems like there are already multiple implementations: - [Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc](https://caniuse.com/#feat=sql-storage https://caniuse.com/#feat=sql-storage) But still, your logic seems circular: Web SQL shouldn't be implemented for all the browsers because there's no spec and there's no spec because there aren't multiple implementations. I imagine there's a distinction you're trying to convey that I'm missing. What is it?
  - Klathmon 9y ago
    The implementations currently are just SQLite hooked into the browser, they aren't different in any real way. It is a bit circular, but generally something gets proposed as a standard, multiple browsers will implement it, then it becomes a finalized standard. In this case it was proposed, the standard says "your implementation needs to do what this other implementation does" (and no other information is given about the SQL system), 2 browsers (really 1 engine at the time, webkit) used SQLite directly, and it never went anywhere else. I guess my point isn't that there's not a "spec", but that the spec that there is doesn't say anything about the SQL part of WebSQL, it just says what the interface to the SQL engine looks like, and then mandates that the SQL engine act, look, and work like the one in a specific version of SQLite.

A core part of web technologies is the fact that they have multiple competing implementations. For example, javascript changes can't be put into a standard until they have (IIRC) 3 major browsers which implement them. Pinning a standard to a specific implementation (and a specific version) is the opposite of every other web standard. Plus it means that any alternate implementations must reimplement SQLite themselves if they don't want to or can't use SQLite themselves.

aeorgnoieang 9y ago
I'm confused about what would be implemented. Is it a database engine that supports the SQL dialect that SQLite uses. In which case, (at least) two browsers have already implemented it, right? If you're referring to SQLite itself being implemented multiple times, I don't understand why that's relevant to Web SQL. You wrote that Web SQL shouldn't be supported, i.e. implemented, until there's a spec. It seems like there's a 'spec' now, if not an official formal spec. But now you're claiming that Web SQL can't be a standard because there aren't multiple implementations. But it certainly seems like there are already multiple implementations: - [Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc](https://caniuse.com/#feat=sql-storage https://caniuse.com/#feat=sql-storage) But still, your logic seems circular: Web SQL shouldn't be implemented for all the browsers because there's no spec and there's no spec because there aren't multiple implementations. I imagine there's a distinction you're trying to convey that I'm missing. What is it?
- Klathmon 9y ago
  The implementations currently are just SQLite hooked into the browser, they aren't different in any real way. It is a bit circular, but generally something gets proposed as a standard, multiple browsers will implement it, then it becomes a finalized standard. In this case it was proposed, the standard says "your implementation needs to do what this other implementation does" (and no other information is given about the SQL system), 2 browsers (really 1 engine at the time, webkit) used SQLite directly, and it never went anywhere else. I guess my point isn't that there's not a "spec", but that the spec that there is doesn't say anything about the SQL part of WebSQL, it just says what the interface to the SQL engine looks like, and then mandates that the SQL engine act, look, and work like the one in a specific version of SQLite.