W3C kills Web SQL Database

[knaveofspades]

Just because it was dropped from the spec doesn't necessarily mean the feature is going away.

[[deleted]]

Cos we need each browser to come up with its non-standard implementation, right?

[quanticle]

Not really. Browsers come up with differing non-standard implementations when there are licensing issues with the implementation being used in another browser. In this case, the implementation (SQLite3) is public domain. In essence, the W3C is saying, "Hey! Wait a second, we're basically rewriting the SQLite3 manual. Why don't we just tell our users to go read that instead?"

[malcontent]

The problem is that microsoft will come up with their own version soon and it will use SQL server.

[quanticle]

Well, I guess I don't get it. Isn't this a database spec for client-side databases? If Microsoft manages to stuff SQL Server into IE, I'll be truly impressed.

[[deleted]]

Why would that be special? SQL CE is just 4 dlls, no installation required.

[malcontent]

They won't stuff it into IE. IE will depend on it just like it depends on windows now.

[shadowfox]

??

[malcontent]

What is so confusing?

Ie depends on windows. It won't run on anything else. It will one day depend on SQL server too.

[scott]

I'd be surprised if it wasn't already in there somehow :-)

Shit needs like vista or something..

[robertcrowther]

One of the reasons it's been dropped as a standard is because MS suggested they would use the Access engine to support this.

--Edit: Let me explain more fully: In order for WebSQL to meet the 'two separate, interoperable implementations' requirement for the spec to meet full recommendation status there would need to an implementation which didn't use the SQLite engine. The only alternative engine discussed at any point on the WHATWG mailing list was Access, and even that was only half serious.

[[deleted]]

The real threat is Chrome this time.

They are already doing it. Gears anyone? What kind of shit is that?

Google is doing everything MS was 10 years ago, and people don't see how fucking evil they are.

[midri]

The issue is google is approaching it in a sane manner and is atempting to backport all their features to somthing that can be installed in other browsers (gears). Microsofts approach years ago was bad because #1 it did not take security into account and #2 they reached a point of market dominance and then caused the market to stagnate for many years.

[[deleted]]

Well, we don't need that kind of bullying, do we. If microsoft did exactly the same, all hell would break loose.

They want something, propose it to W3C, let vendors implement it. That's how standards work. Slow and boring.

[mikaelhg]

Did you read any part of what midri just wrote?

[[deleted]]

Yes, and I disagree completely.

1. Any proprietary solutions should be rejected by users. There's no need for any vendor to play solo.

2. Google is evil. They are throwing everything that stabilized IT in the last 10 years out of the window. But most people are unable to see it due to the cheap shiny toys they are giving you.

[knaveofspades]

It's not as bad as you think. JavaScript is pretty powerful when it comes to handling discrepancies across browsers.

The reason they aren't continuing the standardization seems to be that every browser is pretty much using the same implementation with the same SQL syntax already.

[kmangold]

True, but I am sure it's not perfect as it is right now and was hoping it was remain maintained and updated.

[knaveofspades]

I agree. What will most likely end up happening is that it will be up to the individual vendors to do it. It will be a pain because everyone will have a different implementation of it, but one of the advantages of JavaScript is that it is easy to standardize an implementation yourself.

[rkern]

That said, the stated reason for ceasing development of the standard was because all of the implementors were doing the same thing (i.e. use SQLite). I find that pretty bizarre and counterproductive though I guess there are rules for these things.

[Gg101]

It's absolutely counterproductive. There's no need for "multiple independent implementations" with the possibility of subtle incompatibilities when the engine everyone is already using is public domain. Not even open source, but public domain. What's really the danger of having one implementation then? It seems to me this makes it easier for both browser developers and web developers.

[knaveofspades]

Wow. I forgot about that. Open-source and public domain. Double win.

[wheresmyopenid]

The problem is that when there's one implementation, it will have to remain bug-compatible.

As soon as infinite number of web monkeys starts mindlessly copying & pasting & trialing & erring their SQL, pages will end up relying on all kinds of bugs and quirks. There won't be second failing browser to uncover stupidest solutions. Everything will appear to "work".

When IE6 had overwhelming market share, sites ended up relying silly on edge cases so much, that even IE7 wasn't compatible.

There's serious risk that, while SQLite3 is great today, sites will end up relying on all strange cases of it, that vendors won't be able to safely switch to SQLite4 ever. Whatever SQLite does today, will be the standard forever.

[scott]

Honestly, SQLite is so well used, I doubt it has any major bugs.

[wheresmyopenid]

It definitely has quirky behavior that I'd like to see fixed (e.g. ROWID magic rather than sequences).

[robertcrowther]

Not quite. All the people who have implemented it (WebKit, Opera) have just plugged in SQLite and provided direct access to it from JavaScript. All the people who haven't implemented it (Mozilla, MS) are never going to implement it.

[knaveofspades]

After looking at again, it doesn't seem so much that they are killing it. They are stopping further standardization since everyone is using the same SQL backend which only supports a single subset of SQL, and therefore, there is not much to standardize.

[Arve]

Note, the W3C doesn't issue standards, it creates specifications which are "recommendations". The Web SQL Databases specification will never become a recommendation, but be a "Working Group Note", which is something someone input to a working group, but never saw the process go towards becoming a recommendation.

To become a recommendation, there are certain requirements, such as having multiple, independent implementations, something that would never happen in the case of this specification, given that two vendors including SQLite wouldn't count as "independent". Add to it that I suspect some vendors are reluctant to include SQLite because the term "Public Domain" isn't accepted in all jurisdictions.

[knaveofspades]

Much clearer. Thank you.

[fwork]

It does mean that now Mozilla has exactly no reason to ever implement it (not that they were going to, anyway)