3 ms·
Ah, I see. The wording on the Wikipedia page isn't as good as the wording on the specification draft itself: > This document was on the W3C Recommendation tra
by Taywee 5y ago
Ah, I see. The wording on the Wikipedia page isn't as good as the wording on the specification draft itself:
> 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.
It seems like they didn't just need a specified SQL dialect, but multiple actual implementations, but I might be reading into the wording incorrectly.
- detaro 5y agoIt would likely be necessary to have an independent interpreter for the SQL dialect at least, yes. I.e. I assume that something that parses the SQL from scratch and then down the line hands stuff to sqlite as the storage engine would qualify, since the SQL dialect is the point of contention. (The "multiple independent implementations" requirement is afaik also not 100% hard - if everyone agrees to ignore it, it can be ignored, but it's a strong objection if someone disagrees)