4 ms·

I think this has been discussed before about WebSQL. > The [WebSQL] specification reached an impasse: all interested implementors have used the same SQL backen

I think this has been discussed before about WebSQL. > The [WebSQL] 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. https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/

sdeframond 3y ago
The Chrome blog post about deprecating sqlite-based WebSQL makes an interesing point. I believe it applies to OpenDocument as well. > The Web SQL specification cannot be implemented sustainably, which limits innovation and new functionality. The last version of the standard literally states "User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19". SQLite was not initially designed to run malicious SQL statements, yet implementing Web SQL means browsers have to do exactly this. The need to keep up with security and stability fixes dictates updating SQLite in Chromium. This comes in direct conflict with Web SQL's requirement of behaving exactly as SQLite 3.6.19. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql/
bane 3y ago
In other words, "all the implementors chose a standard, but we're the standard deciders so we're killing the whole idea".
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  One problem was the standard was bug-for-bug replication of a particular version of SQLite. There’s very good reason for that not to be a standard. (Now, assuming the SQLite documentation is licensed in a way which supports this, copying the documentation of SQLite’s supported SQL as of that version into the standard might have been viable, but no one interested in having WebSQL proposed that or any other resolution. That relates to the cited issue of absence of independent implementations, which would have been a problem even with a spec that supported independent implementations and verification of their compliance independent of a particular reference implementation. though I personally think the spec problem is a bigger real problem (even if not the decisive policy problem) than the “everyone is using the same underlying software to implement the spec” problem is in this case, where the shared implementation is a permissively licensed open source implementation sponsored by several of the browser vendors, among others.
  - bane 3y ago
    hmmm...I appreciate the thoughtful reply. You bring up an interesting point. What is the SQLite documentation licensed as? I would assume PD like the rest of it, but I don't know that for sure.
  - anticensor 3y ago
    SQLite itself is in the public domain.
- sdeframond 3y ago
  The standard deciders are the implementors. There is no point in opposing them. The W3C is actually the representatives of Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Opera and so on.

sdeframond 3y ago

The Chrome blog post about deprecating sqlite-based WebSQL makes an interesing point. I believe it applies to OpenDocument as well. > The Web SQL specification cannot be implemented sustainably, which limits innovation and new functionality. The last version of the standard literally states "User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19". SQLite was not initially designed to run malicious SQL statements, yet implementing Web SQL means browsers have to do exactly this. The need to keep up with security and stability fixes dictates updating SQLite in Chromium. This comes in direct conflict with Web SQL's requirement of behaving exactly as SQLite 3.6.19. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/deprecating-web-sql/

bane 3y ago

In other words, "all the implementors chose a standard, but we're the standard deciders so we're killing the whole idea".

dragonwriter 3y ago
One problem was the standard was bug-for-bug replication of a particular version of SQLite. There’s very good reason for that not to be a standard. (Now, assuming the SQLite documentation is licensed in a way which supports this, copying the documentation of SQLite’s supported SQL as of that version into the standard might have been viable, but no one interested in having WebSQL proposed that or any other resolution. That relates to the cited issue of absence of independent implementations, which would have been a problem even with a spec that supported independent implementations and verification of their compliance independent of a particular reference implementation. though I personally think the spec problem is a bigger real problem (even if not the decisive policy problem) than the “everyone is using the same underlying software to implement the spec” problem is in this case, where the shared implementation is a permissively licensed open source implementation sponsored by several of the browser vendors, among others.
- bane 3y ago
  hmmm...I appreciate the thoughtful reply. You bring up an interesting point. What is the SQLite documentation licensed as? I would assume PD like the rest of it, but I don't know that for sure.
- anticensor 3y ago
  SQLite itself is in the public domain.
sdeframond 3y ago
The standard deciders are the implementors. There is no point in opposing them. The W3C is actually the representatives of Google, Mozilla, Microsoft, Opera and so on.