3 ms·
Either its so good that its worthy of being standardized or its not and google is flexing its monopoly muscle and trying to kill competition. Many here hate Mi
by fxfan 8y ago
Either its so good that its worthy of being standardized or its not and google is flexing its monopoly muscle and trying to kill competition.
Many here hate Microsoft, some probably copy others not knowing what's to hate but the minority that knows the 1990s knows what was so bad, and if they still use anything google then shame be upon them
- klodolph 8y agoIn the 90s you would be right, these days web standards don’t get standardized without having implementations first.
- _puk 8y agoTell that to WebSQL.. All vendors implemented (essentially) the same API, then the W3C subsequently abandoned it due to lack of independent implementations [0]. 0: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_SQL_Database
- comex 8y agoAs far as I can tell, only two browser engines ever implemented WebSQL: Safari and Chrome's WebKit (which hadn't yet been forked into Blink), and Opera's Presto (which hadn't yet been abandoned in favor of Chromium). Firefox never implemented it, and neither did IE (Edge hadn't been announced yet), so it certainly wasn't implemented by "all vendors". And both implementations were just thin wrappers around the same library, SQLite, so the W3C was correct in saying there were no actual independent implementations.
- coldtea 8y ago>And both implementations were just thin wrappers around the same library, SQLite, so the W3C was correct in saying there were no actual independent implementations. Why should there be?
- developit 8y agoNot a great example, since "independent" is the important bit there: browsers just shipped sqlite, and you can't have a spec that says "just ship sqlite".