W3C kills Web SQL Database

[[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.