3 ms·
WebSQL was what we all wanted. But if I remember right, it couldn't be standardised because the W3C requirement insists that there should be atleast 2 different
by webmobdev 5y ago
WebSQL was what we all wanted. But if I remember right, it couldn't be standardised because the W3C requirement insists that there should be atleast 2 different implementations of it in the clients - however all the browsers that supported it only built it using SQLite (which is a very obvious choice). If atleast one of the browser had built an implementation with a different database backend (like perhaps BerkleyDB), it could have become a web standard and a reality today. Instead, we are stuck with crap like IndexedDB.
- bzbarsky 5y agoIf a least one browser had used a different backend, the API behavior would have had to actually be defined instead of just saying "behaves like SQLite". And that defined behavior would have to be implementable on top of both SQLite an the other backend. All doable, but quite a lot of work. Once you start looking at the details, every single database has its own SQL dialect and they're not all that compatible except for the simplest queries.
- throw_m239339 5y ago> Instead, we are stuck with crap like IndexedDB. Which is implemented on top of Sqlite in many browsers, what a joke. It's easier to implement IndexedDB on top of a SQL database than the other way around, so people claiming IndexedDB is "lower level" are ignorant.
- vendiddy 5y agoThat's a shame. So we don't have it for bureaucratic reasons? What was the rationale behind that rule?