3 ms·
WebSQL, like a lot of the stuff Google pushes, wasn't a standard. It was an implementation. And one that raised a lot of questions, like will it track with SQLi
by paulryanrogers 4y ago
WebSQL, like a lot of the stuff Google pushes, wasn't a standard. It was an implementation. And one that raised a lot of questions, like will it track with SQLite or be frozen in time except for security fixes?
With only a single implementation there are risks, like everyone gets owned by the same bug or oversight. In nature mono crops can be devastated by a single virus or invasive species.
- jpgvm 4y agoExactly. Linux isn't a standard, it's an implementation and that comes with many benefits. Some downsides also like you noted but generally speaking more good than bad. I prefer a world where we can have WebSQL over a world where it's killed because Mozilla says that we need to build a new implementation of SQLite just because standardisation. Obviously lots of people feel differently but my opinion is that standards don't really matter that much when every browser chooses to implement each standard slightly differently.
- asddubs 4y agowell, the web needs to be backwards compatible, basically indefinitely, once something has been around long enough to proliferate. so it's generally troubling to just pull in some third party library and go "I call it WebSQL", because you can't make any guarantees about how it will change, whether project policies will change, or if it will be abandoned entirely. For something to be a part of web standards places constaints on that thing, permanently. And I would wager to say that SQLite never agreed to or promised to those constraints, they are their own project and have enough to worry about. So it got the axe.