3 ms·
The point is that someone has to actually sit down and define the exact feature set that a WebSQL implementation is supposed to implement, such that a developme
by vertex-four 13y ago
The point is that someone has to actually sit down and define the exact feature set that a WebSQL implementation is supposed to implement, such that a development team could sit down with a copy of the standard and no other code and implement their own WebSQL implementation from scratch.
The fact that SQLite is available is entirely irrelevant to any of this. The W3C can't just say "do it like SQLite does it" - that's not a standard. The WebSQL spec that exists says:
> User agents must implement the SQL dialect supported by Sqlite 3.6.19.
Unless someone actually sits down and goes through the standardisation process to define WebSQL properly, this is not the way to go, or the next thing will be "implement this tag like Firefox does".
- jeffdavis 13y agoTo be more specific: let's say SQLite has a bug which manifests differently on different platforms. It would be impossible to adhere to the standard.
- SchizoDuckie 13y agoMay I refer once again to http://sqlite.org/testing.html http://sqlite.org/testing.html and the fact that it's running in the real world on millions of devices? This is a non-argument in this discussion! What if IndexedDB has a bug which manifests differntly on differnt platforms? You would refer to the specs, which can be tested.
- mrcsparker 13y agoI don't understand this argument. There is already a SQL standard. Start there.
- vertex-four 13y agoThe SQL standard defines far more than you'd want in a web browser, and I'm not sure anyone actually wants all of it. So someone has to sit down and define which bits to cut out, anyway... and then browser developers have to develop a database engine, which I'm fairly sure none want to do. We barely have any open-source software that implements SQL correctly as it is.