4 ms·
It was blocked because the standards bodies require two or more independent implementations. All Mozilla said was that if they were to implement WebSQL they wou
by kbrosnan 6y ago
It was blocked because the standards bodies require two or more independent implementations. All Mozilla said was that if they were to implement WebSQL they would use SQLite and there would not be two different implementations. Why should have Mozilla had the burden of implanting WebSQL in a different database?
- sroussey 6y agoThis is a case for making exceptions.
- orf 6y agoNo it's not. WebSQL would have become "WebSQLite", quirks and all. That's not good for anyone. Any quirks in SQLite (of which there are _many_) would immediately become unfixable parts of the spec.
- samatman 6y agoSure would be a shame if a web standard reified implementation quirks as a durable part of the spec, something which has never happened before in the history of the World Wide Web.
- orf 6y agoYes, it would be as much a shame now as it was then. This might come as a surprise but you can actually _learn_ from past mistakes and attempt to avoid them in the future. Like websql. SQLite is a large, complex project by itself. Not only would you be adding it’s quirks into the spec but you’d be basically locked into a specific version of SQLite that has to be bug for bug compatible with whatever version was shipped before. It’s quite clearly a terrible, terrible idea. And I say that as someone who was quite looking forward to what WebSQL has to offer. It’s more a reflection on “there is only one embedded SQL database suitable for use” than anything else.