3 ms·

What about JSON? That became a standard without multiple implementations or even any discussion about what people would’ve wanted, like comments. I just don’t

What about JSON? That became a standard without multiple implementations or even any discussion about what people would’ve wanted, like comments. I just don’t think there’s any rule that says that we need multiple implementations of thing to make it a standard. Also, we already have a standard for SQL and they could’ve just used the parts of SQLite that were compliant with that.

virtualwhys 9y ago
> Also, we already have a standard for SQL I know right, there are in fact several (which may have been part of the problem). Most SQL database vendors tend to stray slightly (or not so slightly) from the SQL standard that they target; SQLite is no exception. Just unfortunate that the browser vendors couldn't come together and build a client-side SQL based API rather than punting and implementing a very basic key/value store on top of which someone will eventually reimplement SQLite. It's like 5 or 10 years from now we'll have what we had 10+ years ago, such progress!
rakoo 9y ago
JSON became an official standard in 2013, by which time many open-source, independent implementations existed. > I just don’t think there’s any rule that says that we need multiple implementations of thing to make it a standard There are rules that say that we need multiple implementations of thing to make it a standard: * The IETF requires it to be accepted as "Internet standard", ie the highest form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Standard#Standardization_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Standard#Standardizat... * The W3C strongly desires that proposed standards have multiple, independent implementations to advance to the state of "Proposed reccomendation": https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr > Also, we already have a standard for SQL and they could’ve just used the parts of SQLite that were compliant with that. That would probably have been the best solution, I agree. And then people would have complained about bloat again, that browsers are now required to expose a SQL engine, that they are too big, etc...
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  I know that you need multiple implementation of a proposed standard to make it a standard. What I was trying to (and failed to) convey is that you don’t need multiple implementations of a thing, as in SQLite itself, to let that become the standard because it’s mostly already compliant with SQL, the standard. Anyway, there are multiple implementations of SQLite itself. It’s been implemented in JavaScript and .NET and Java as well I believe.

virtualwhys 9y ago

> Also, we already have a standard for SQL I know right, there are in fact several (which may have been part of the problem). Most SQL database vendors tend to stray slightly (or not so slightly) from the SQL standard that they target; SQLite is no exception. Just unfortunate that the browser vendors couldn't come together and build a client-side SQL based API rather than punting and implementing a very basic key/value store on top of which someone will eventually reimplement SQLite. It's like 5 or 10 years from now we'll have what we had 10+ years ago, such progress!

rakoo 9y ago

JSON became an official standard in 2013, by which time many open-source, independent implementations existed. > I just don’t think there’s any rule that says that we need multiple implementations of thing to make it a standard There are rules that say that we need multiple implementations of thing to make it a standard: * The IETF requires it to be accepted as "Internet standard", ie the highest form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Standard#Standardization_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Standard#Standardizat... * The W3C strongly desires that proposed standards have multiple, independent implementations to advance to the state of "Proposed reccomendation": https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr > Also, we already have a standard for SQL and they could’ve just used the parts of SQLite that were compliant with that. That would probably have been the best solution, I agree. And then people would have complained about bloat again, that browsers are now required to expose a SQL engine, that they are too big, etc...

hungerstrike 9y ago
I know that you need multiple implementation of a proposed standard to make it a standard. What I was trying to (and failed to) convey is that you don’t need multiple implementations of a thing, as in SQLite itself, to let that become the standard because it’s mostly already compliant with SQL, the standard. Anyway, there are multiple implementations of SQLite itself. It’s been implemented in JavaScript and .NET and Java as well I believe.