3 ms·

> 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 al

by sid0 16y ago

> 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.

Groxx 16y ago
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 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/ http://www.w3.org/Consortium/) How does trying to prevent it aid in "lead[ing] the Web to its full potential"?
- sid0 16y ago
  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.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    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?
    - sid0 16y ago
      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 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Projects/IndexedDB [2] http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/indexeddb http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/indexedd... [3] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/03/09/working-with-the-html5-community.aspx 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.
      - Groxx 16y ago
        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?
        sid0 16y ago
        By "peculiarities" I didn't mean minor implementation differences but the major ideas behind the implementation. Be reasonable here -- the differences in implementation in the DOM between Gecko and WebKit (say) are trivial compared to "type checking" vs "lack of type checking". There's a bit of subjectivity involved, agreed, but I think any reasonable person would agree about the differences.

by sid0 16y ago

Groxx 16y ago

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 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/ http://www.w3.org/Consortium/) How does trying to prevent it aid in "lead[ing] the Web to its full potential"?

sid0 16y ago
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.
- Groxx 16y ago
  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?
  - sid0 16y ago
    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 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Projects/IndexedDB [2] http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/indexeddb http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/indexedd... [3] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/03/09/working-with-the-html5-community.aspx 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.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      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?
      - sid0 16y ago
        By "peculiarities" I didn't mean minor implementation differences but the major ideas behind the implementation. Be reasonable here -- the differences in implementation in the DOM between Gecko and WebKit (say) are trivial compared to "type checking" vs "lack of type checking". There's a bit of subjectivity involved, agreed, but I think any reasonable person would agree about the differences.