5 ms·

This reminds of the WebSQL spec being dropped because the only implementations used SQLite: > The W3C Web Applications Working Group ceased working on the spec

This reminds of the WebSQL spec being dropped because the only implementations used SQLite: > The W3C Web Applications Working Group ceased working on the specification in November 2010, citing a lack of independent implementations (i.e. using database system other than SQLite as the backend) as the reason the specification could not move forward to become a W3C Recommendation. -- Wikipedia > This document was on the W3C Recommendation track but specification work has stopped. The specification reached an impasse: all interested implementors have used the same SQL backend (Sqlite), but we need multiple independent implementations to proceed along a standardisation path. -- W3C I wonder how much of their reasoning applies here.

tasogare 6y ago
It strange that Microsoft didn’t try to use Sql Server Compact Edition, which was available on Windows Phone, to make the distinct required implementation.
- pbronez 6y ago
  Fascinating, never hears of SQL Server Compact Edition before. Unfortunately Wikipedia reports it was deprecated in 2013 and will EOL in 2021. Also it doesn’t have an ODBC driver. Certainly not a contemporary alternative to SQLite.
- detaro 6y ago
  The main problem was that the WebSQL "spec" draft did basically say: "Database that supports SQL the same way as this specific version of SQLite does", and nobody felt it was important enough to put in the work to actually specify something that could be implemented long-term.
chungy 6y ago
I've grown to not mind WebSQL being dropped, despite that 10 years ago, I wish it were standardized. WebAssembly's introduction a few years later means that SQLite can be built and used as a wasm module, and you aren't limited by whatever old version of SQLite was used for WebSQL -- you can always update it independently according to your needs. A lot of sites actually do this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
garmaine 6y ago
Seems like the problem is in the standards process here...
indolering 6y ago
The biggest problem with WebSQL == SQLite was that the semantics couldn't be nailed down beyond a pile of C code. That is doable if there is a single application vendor for a given file format, but a total nightmare if you are trying to write code for the last 3 versions of 5 different browsers. But SQLite was also a problem for anyone that wanted different semantics than what SQLite offered, like statically typed columns. Better to just provide a fast indexing mechanism and let people define semantics on top of that.
Shorel 6y ago
I think that was faulty reasoning back then, and it is no different now.

tasogare 6y ago

It strange that Microsoft didn’t try to use Sql Server Compact Edition, which was available on Windows Phone, to make the distinct required implementation.

pbronez 6y ago
Fascinating, never hears of SQL Server Compact Edition before. Unfortunately Wikipedia reports it was deprecated in 2013 and will EOL in 2021. Also it doesn’t have an ODBC driver. Certainly not a contemporary alternative to SQLite.
detaro 6y ago
The main problem was that the WebSQL "spec" draft did basically say: "Database that supports SQL the same way as this specific version of SQLite does", and nobody felt it was important enough to put in the work to actually specify something that could be implemented long-term.

chungy 6y ago

I've grown to not mind WebSQL being dropped, despite that 10 years ago, I wish it were standardized. WebAssembly's introduction a few years later means that SQLite can be built and used as a wasm module, and you aren't limited by whatever old version of SQLite was used for WebSQL -- you can always update it independently according to your needs. A lot of sites actually do this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

garmaine 6y ago

Seems like the problem is in the standards process here...

indolering 6y ago

The biggest problem with WebSQL == SQLite was that the semantics couldn't be nailed down beyond a pile of C code. That is doable if there is a single application vendor for a given file format, but a total nightmare if you are trying to write code for the last 3 versions of 5 different browsers. But SQLite was also a problem for anyone that wanted different semantics than what SQLite offered, like statically typed columns. Better to just provide a fast indexing mechanism and let people define semantics on top of that.

Shorel 6y ago

I think that was faulty reasoning back then, and it is no different now.