Seeking pre-LCWD comments for: Server-sent Events, Web {Database, Sockets, Storage Workers}; deadline 19 November

[Arthur Barstow]

As noted on 23 October [1], the following "HTML5 APIs" are ready or  
very close to being ready for Last Call Working Draft (LC):

1. Server-Sent Events
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/

2. Web Database
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/

3. Web Sockets API
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

4. Web Storage
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

5. Web Workers
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/

Please submit comments about these specs by 19 November.

Note the Process Document states the following regarding the  
significance/meaning of LCWD:

[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant  
technical requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements  
document) in the Working Draft;

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant  
dependencies with other groups;

* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these  
dependencies have been satisfied.
In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the  
Working Group is planning to advance the technical report to later  
maturity levels.

]]

Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all  
issues resolved; that is, as Chaals noted yesterday, "Last Call means  
the Working Group considers the work to be good".

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 
0313.html

[Jonas Sicking-2]

I know we had this conversation before, and I'm not even sure which
side of the issue I was on at the time, but given the amount of
confusion at the TPAC meeting yesterday, I think we should consider
renaming the "Web Database" spec.

It seems clear at this point that the API will in all likelyhood
forever be SQL based, so I propose that we include SQL somewhere in
the name, for example "Web SQL Database" or some such.

/ Jonas

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@...> wrote:

> As noted on 23 October [1], the following "HTML5 APIs" are ready or very
> close to being ready for Last Call Working Draft (LC):
>
> 1. Server-Sent Events
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
>
> 2. Web Database
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
>
> 3. Web Sockets API
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
>
> 4. Web Storage
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
>
> 5. Web Workers
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
>
> Please submit comments about these specs by 19 November.
>
> Note the Process Document states the following regarding the
> significance/meaning of LCWD:
>
> [[
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
> Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
>
> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical
> requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working
> Draft;
>
> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies
> with other groups;
>
> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies
> have been satisfied.
> In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group
> is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels.
>
> ]]
>
> Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all issues
> resolved; that is, as Chaals noted yesterday, "Last Call means the Working
> Group considers the work to be good".
>
> -Regards, Art Barstow
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html
>
>
>
>

[Nikunj R. Mehta]

On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

> I know we had this conversation before, and I'm not even sure which
> side of the issue I was on at the time, but given the amount of
> confusion at the TPAC meeting yesterday, I think we should consider
> renaming the "Web Database" spec.

I am glad you recognize this issue now (noting that I raised this  
point in July [1] when. At that time we proposed that this spec be  
called SQLDatabase or WebSQLDatabase.

>
> It seems clear at this point that the API will in all likelyhood
> forever be SQL based, so I propose that we include SQL somewhere in
> the name, for example "Web SQL Database" or some such.

I would support this name change.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/D34DA34B-3ED7-4D65-9ECB-C9A7BFF3110F@...

> / Jonas
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Arthur Barstow  
> <art.barstow@...> wrote:
>> As noted on 23 October [1], the following "HTML5 APIs" are ready or  
>> very
>> close to being ready for Last Call Working Draft (LC):
>>
>> 1. Server-Sent Events
>>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
>>
>> 2. Web Database
>>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
>>
>> 3. Web Sockets API
>>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
>>
>> 4. Web Storage
>>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
>>
>> 5. Web Workers
>>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/
>>
>> Please submit comments about these specs by 19 November.
>>
>> Note the Process Document states the following regarding the
>> significance/meaning of LCWD:
>>
>> [[
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
>> Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
>>
>> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant  
>> technical
>> requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the  
>> Working
>> Draft;
>>
>> * the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant  
>> dependencies
>> with other groups;
>>
>> * other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these  
>> dependencies
>> have been satisfied.
>> In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the  
>> Working Group
>> is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels.
>>
>> ]]
>>
>> Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all  
>> issues
>> resolved; that is, as Chaals noted yesterday, "Last Call means the  
>> Working
>> Group considers the work to be good".
>>
>> -Regards, Art Barstow
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com

[Michael Nordman]

+1

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@...> wrote:

On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:

I know we had this conversation before, and I'm not even sure which
side of the issue I was on at the time, but given the amount of
confusion at the TPAC meeting yesterday, I think we should consider
renaming the "Web Database" spec.

I am glad you recognize this issue now (noting that I raised this point in July [1] when. At that time we proposed that this spec be called SQLDatabase or WebSQLDatabase.

It seems clear at this point that the API will in all likelyhood
forever be SQL based, so I propose that we include SQL somewhere in
the name, for example "Web SQL Database" or some such.

I would support this name change.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/D34DA34B-3ED7-4D65-9ECB-C9A7BFF3110F@...

/ Jonas

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@...> wrote:

As noted on 23 October [1], the following "HTML5 APIs" are ready or very
close to being ready for Last Call Working Draft (LC):

1. Server-Sent Events
 http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/

2. Web Database
 http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/

3. Web Sockets API
 http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/

4. Web Storage
 http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/

5. Web Workers
 http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/

Please submit comments about these specs by 19 November.

Note the Process Document states the following regarding the
significance/meaning of LCWD:

[[
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical
requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working
Draft;

* the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies
with other groups;

* other groups SHOULD review the document to confirm that these dependencies
have been satisfied.
In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group
is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels.

]]

Additionally, a LCWD should be considered feature-complete with all issues
resolved; that is, as Chaals noted yesterday, "Last Call means the Working
Group considers the work to be good".

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0313.html

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > I know we had this conversation before, and I'm not even sure which
> > side of the issue I was on at the time, but given the amount of
> > confusion at the TPAC meeting yesterday, I think we should consider
> > renaming the "Web Database" spec.
>
> I am glad you recognize this issue now (noting that I raised this point
> in July [1] when. At that time we proposed that this spec be called
> SQLDatabase or WebSQLDatabase.

At the time, I was assuming we would have just the one database spec, so
Web Database made sense as a I name. Given the new direction of the
working group, I agree that renaming Web Database to Web SQL Database or
something would be sensible. We should probably also rename Web Simple
Database to something more descriptive, so that people can distinguish
them more easily.

Cheers,
--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

[Jeremy Orlow-2]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@...> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > I know we had this conversation before, and I'm not even sure which
> > side of the issue I was on at the time, but given the amount of
> > confusion at the TPAC meeting yesterday, I think we should consider
> > renaming the "Web Database" spec.
>
> I am glad you recognize this issue now (noting that I raised this point
> in July [1] when. At that time we proposed that this spec be called
> SQLDatabase or WebSQLDatabase.

At the time, I was assuming we would have just the one database spec, so
Web Database made sense as a I name. Given the new direction of the
working group, I agree that renaming Web Database to Web SQL Database or
something would be sensible. We should probably also rename Web Simple
Database to something more descriptive, so that people can distinguish
them more easily.

I strongly agree.

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On Nov 5, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@...> wrote:

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >
> > I know we had this conversation before, and I'm not even sure which
> > side of the issue I was on at the time, but given the amount of
> > confusion at the TPAC meeting yesterday, I think we should consider
> > renaming the "Web Database" spec.
>
> I am glad you recognize this issue now (noting that I raised this point
> in July [1] when. At that time we proposed that this spec be called
> SQLDatabase or WebSQLDatabase.

At the time, I was assuming we would have just the one database spec, so
Web Database made sense as a I name. Given the new direction of the
working group, I agree that renaming Web Database to Web SQL Database or
something would be sensible. We should probably also rename Web Simple
Database to something more descriptive, so that people can distinguish
them more easily.

I strongly agree.

I agree with renaming both. Would "Web B-Tree Database" be an accurate description of SimpleDB? Does anyone else have a more accurate term?

Regards,

Maciej

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi All,

On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:46 AM, Barstow Art (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote:

> As noted on 23 October [1], the following "HTML5 APIs" are ready or
> very close to being ready for Last Call Working Draft (LC):
>
> 1. Server-Sent Events
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/eventsource/
>
> 2. Web Database
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/webdatabase/
>
> 3. Web Sockets API
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/
>
> 4. Web Storage
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
>
> 5. Web Workers
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/workers/

Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next  
steps as:

1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers - ready for LCWD  
publication. Later today I will begin a CfC to publish LCWD of these  
three specs

2. Web Sockets API - the group should discuss Adrian's comments:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/ 
0842.html

3. Web Database - there is sufficient interest to keep this spec on  
the Recommendation track. However, there is an open question about  
who will commit to drive this spec, in particular who will commit to  
being its Editor. Hixie - would you please explain your intent/
position here?

-Art Barstow

[Ian Hickson]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:

>
> Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next steps as:
>
> 1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers - ready for LCWD
> publication. Later today I will begin a CfC to publish LCWD of these
> three specs
>
> 2. Web Sockets API - the group should discuss Adrian's comments:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0842.html
>
> 3. Web Database - there is sufficient interest to keep this spec on the
> Recommendation track. However, there is an open question about who will
> commit to drive this spec, in particular who will commit to being its
> Editor. Hixie - would you please explain your intent/position here?

My intent with the Web SQL Database spec (or whatever I end up calling
it) is to continue to drive it to REC, but without defining the SQL
dialect in any more detail than the draft does now (as edited after the
F2F). I would not consider multiple implementations all using the same SQL
backend to be fully independent for the purposes of getting two
interoperable implementations for the purpose of exiting CR, and thus I do
not expect this spec to ever get past that stage.

For the other specs, I have received new feedback and intend to address it
before advancing the specs (including Adrian's comments cited above).

Once I have returned to having no outstanding known issues on any of these
five documents (storage, sql database, workers, eventsource, and sockets),
I think they will be ready for transition to Last Call. I hope to be ready
for this by the first week of next month.

(Apologies for the week's delay; I took an impromptu vacation last week.)

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

[Nikunj R. Mehta]

On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next  
>> steps as:
>>
>> 1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers - ready for LCWD
>> publication. Later today I will begin a CfC to publish LCWD of these
>> three specs
>>
>> 2. Web Sockets API - the group should discuss Adrian's comments:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0842.html
>>
>> 3. Web Database - there is sufficient interest to keep this spec on  
>> the
>> Recommendation track. However, there is an open question about who  
>> will
>> commit to drive this spec, in particular who will commit to being its
>> Editor. Hixie - would you please explain your intent/position here?
>
> My intent with the Web SQL Database spec (or whatever I end up calling
> it) is to continue to drive it to REC, but without defining the SQL
> dialect in any more detail than the draft does now (as edited after  
> the
> F2F).

This suggests that we are unlikely to make any progress on the draft  
past this point.

> I would not consider multiple implementations all using the same SQL
> backend to be fully independent for the purposes of getting two
> interoperable implementations for the purpose of exiting CR, and  
> thus I do
> not expect this spec to ever get past that stage.

I don't see any logic in this that would benefit this WG.

>
> <snip>
>

Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com

[Jeremy Orlow-2]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@...> wrote:

On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next steps as:

1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers - ready for LCWD
publication. Later today I will begin a CfC to publish LCWD of these
three specs

2. Web Sockets API - the group should discuss Adrian's comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0842.html

3. Web Database - there is sufficient interest to keep this spec on the
Recommendation track. However, there is an open question about who will
commit to drive this spec, in particular who will commit to being its
Editor. Hixie - would you please explain your intent/position here?

My intent with the Web SQL Database spec (or whatever I end up calling
it) is to continue to drive it to REC, but without defining the SQL
dialect in any more detail than the draft does now (as edited after the
F2F).

This suggests that we are unlikely to make any progress on the draft past this point.

I would not consider multiple implementations all using the same SQL
backend to be fully independent for the purposes of getting two
interoperable implementations for the purpose of exiting CR, and thus I do
not expect this spec to ever get past that stage.

I don't see any logic in this that would benefit this WG.

I think the logic behind the decision is already clear in this thread.  I don't see why you're being so adamant about this when you're affected very little by the decision either way (except that your proposal has less "competition" I suppose).

[Nikunj R. Mehta]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@...> wrote:

On Nov 24, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Arthur Barstow wrote:

Based on the responses for this call for comments, I see the next steps as:

1. Server-sent Events, Web Storage and Web Workers - ready for LCWD
publication. Later today I will begin a CfC to publish LCWD of these
three specs

2. Web Sockets API - the group should discuss Adrian's comments:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0842.html

3. Web Database - there is sufficient interest to keep this spec on the
Recommendation track. However, there is an open question about who will
commit to drive this spec, in particular who will commit to being its
Editor. Hixie - would you please explain your intent/position here?

My intent with the Web SQL Database spec (or whatever I end up calling
it) is to continue to drive it to REC, but without defining the SQL
dialect in any more detail than the draft does now (as edited after the
F2F).

This suggests that we are unlikely to make any progress on the draft past this point.

I would not consider multiple implementations all using the same SQL
backend to be fully independent for the purposes of getting two
interoperable implementations for the purpose of exiting CR, and thus I do
not expect this spec to ever get past that stage.

I don't see any logic in this that would benefit this WG.

I think the logic behind the decision is already clear in this thread.  I don't see why you're being so adamant about this when you're affected very little by the decision either way (except that your proposal has less "competition" I suppose).

My position about WebDatabase has been the same for over 8 months now. Needless to say, objections are about the substance not the business benefit or otherwise. If you or others can offer a clear solution about the substance of my issue, I will gladly withdraw my objection. There is no benefit in us discussing reasons for why we have a substantive issue. It exists therefore I have the issue and I am not willing to look the other way.

Oracle cares to avoid needless confusion and I don't think I am doing any disservice to this WG as Oracle's representative in stating its position, which is principled, constructive and transparent.

What doesn't make sense is to put this WG through the effort knowing fully well that the result cannot be accomplished. The editor's proposal appears to be an attempt at circumventing the W3C process. Not every behavior you or other vendors implement is a good or a legal standard. It is hypocritical to condone attempts at standardizing such behaviors.

Nikunj

http://o-micron.blogspot.com

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> I know we had this conversation before, and I'm not even sure which side
> of the issue I was on at the time, but given the amount of confusion at
> the TPAC meeting yesterday, I think we should consider renaming the "Web
> Database" spec.
>
> It seems clear at this point that the API will in all likelyhood forever
> be SQL based, so I propose that we include SQL somewhere in the name,
> for example "Web SQL Database" or some such.

Done.

--
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'