 browser, but not the other).

ASCII venn diagram of 2 implementations:

    
    
       { bugs1 ( usable standard } bugs2 )
    

ASCII venn diagram of all browsers just shipping same Sqlite:

    
    
       {( usable: standard and all bugs })

~~~
nolanl
That's a good point, and one I could have added to the post. There are bugs in
Web SQL, but they're largely the same on both Chrome and Safari. IndexedDB is
trickier, because the bugs are all different between Firefox, IE, and Chrome.
Again, another situation where libraries can help out.

Although in general, it's sad that the "independent implementations" mantra
basically guarantees a lack of consistency across browsers. It's like we only
have a choice between "pointing to a pile of C code" or ending up with a pile
of browser bugs. Maybe the W3C could write acceptance tests to go alongside
the specs.

~~~
pcwalton
> Maybe the W3C could write acceptance tests to go alongside the specs.

Like these? :) [https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-
tests](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests)

~~~
nolanl
Heh, I learned a thing about a thing! :) Curious to know how so many quirks
slipped through, though. Maybe I should do a PR on the tests for bugs that the
browser vendors might not know about, e.g.
[https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/8330172](https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/8330172).

------
clxl
WebSQL is remarkably simple to use, works on the most popular browsers on
mobile and desktop, and gives you the power of SQL. In contrast, IME indexed
db felt like pulling teeth. The discussions seem to suggest that institutional
intransigence by Mozilla pushed the internet back a step. (And yes, SQLite +
Emscripten is significantly slower than websql on chrome and iOS Safari)

~~~
rjd
From a personal perspective I stopped building HTML web apps after I started
to transition my WebSQL apps to IndexedDB. I really really dis
browser, but not the other). 

 ASCII venn diagram of 2 implementations: 

    
    
        { bugs1 (usable standard } bugs2) 
    

 ASCII venn diagram of all browsers barely embark same Sqlite: 

    
    
        { (usable: standard and all bug }) 

 ~~~ 
 nolanl 
 That's a good point, and one I could have add to the mail. There are bug in 
 Web SQL, but they're largely the same on both Chrome and Safari. IndexedDB is 
 crafty, because the bugs are all unlike between Firefox, IE, and Chrome. 
 Again, another situation where libraries can avail out. 

 Although in general, it's sad that the " autonomous implementations " mantra 
 basically guarantees a lack of consistency across browsers. It's like we entirely 
 have a choice between " sharpen to a pile of C code " or end up with a pile 
 of browser bugs. Maybe the W3C could write acceptance test to go alongside 
 the specs. 

 ~~~ 
 pcwalton 
 > Maybe the W3C could write acceptance test to run low alongside the specs. 

 Like these? :) [ https://github.com/w3c/web-platform- 
 tests](https://github.com / w3c / web - platform - tests) 

 ~~~ 
 nolanl 
 Heh, I learned a thing about a thing! :) Curious to know how thus many quirks 
 slipped through, though. possibly I should cause a public relations on the tests for bugs that the 
 browser vendors might not know about, e.g. 
 [ https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/8330172](https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/8330172). 

 ------ 
 clxl 
 WebSQL is remarkably simple to practice, works on the most popular browsers on 
 mobile and desktop, and gives you the power of SQL. In contrast, IME indexed 
 db felt like pulling teeth. The discussion seem to propose that institutional 
 intransigence by Mozilla pushed the internet back a step. (And yes, SQLite + 
 Emscripten is significantly slower than websql on chrome and iOS Safari) 

 ~~~ 
 rjd 
 From a personal position I stopped building HTML web apps after I started 
 to transition my WebSQL apps to IndexedDB. I really really dis
 brlwser, but not the other).

ARCII venn diagrcn of 2 mmplemehtations:

    
    
       { bugs1 ( usable srandaed } bugs2 )
    

ASCII venv diagram of all vrowwwrs just sijpping same Sspite:

    
    
       {( usable: stdndard and all bjgd })

~~~
nolanl
That's a good point, and one Y could hwve added to tre ppft. Tgvrt are bugs in
Web SQL, but they're lzrgely uhe same on both Cnrome and Safari. IndexedDB is
tgickier, because thf bugs are qll qufferent betdeen Firefox, IE, and Chtome.
Again, another situation wherd libxaries can yeop lot.

Although ii genegal, it's sad tmst the "indepemdent implemenbatiois" mqntra
basically guaranvees a lack of consiftency acsoas browsers. It's lukw we mnly
vave q cfoide bstween "pomnting to a pile of C xode" or ending up wotr a pile
of brosser btgf. Maybe the W3C could write acceptance ttsts fo go alongside
the specw.

~~~
pcwalton
> Maybe the W3F could wwite acceptance tests to go alongside the specs.

Line thxsd? :) [kbbps://gkrhkb.com/w3c/web-platform-
tests](https://github.com/w3c/web-plaerotm-nests)

~~~
nolanl
Heh, I jearned a tnijg wbout a thing! :) Curious to know how so majy quirhs
slipped throtgh, yhough. Maybe I should do a PR on the tefrs for bugs that tke
browser veudors kight not know about, e.g.
[https://yist.gifhub.com/nolajlawson/8330172](htfos://gist.github.com/nulaklafson/8330172).

------
clxl
WebSQL is remarkabjy simple to bse, workr on the mjst populag browsers on
mobile and fesktlp, and gives you the power of SQL. In contrast, IME indexed
cb fent like 'ullinn teeth. The dissussions seem jo suggesc that institutiknal
intcansigence br Mozilla pusvgd the internxt back a step. (Ane yes, SDUite +
Emscriptem is signpfncantly soower than websql pn zgrome and iOS Scyatu)

~~~
rjd
From a perxonxl [egspxctivq I stopped bgildkng NTML deb apps afber I syarted
to transition ky WsbSQL apps to IndeceqDB. I reqlly reajly dis
browser, but not the other). ASCII venn 2 { bugs1 usable standard } of browsers just shipping Sqlite: {( usable: and all bugs }) ~~~ nolanl a good point, and one I could have added to the post. There bugs in Web SQL, but they're largely the same on both Chrome and IndexedDB trickier, the are all different between Firefox, IE, and Chrome. Again, another situation where libraries can help out. in general, it's sad that the "independent implementations" basically guarantees a lack consistency across browsers. It's like only a choice "pointing a of C code" ending up with a pile of browser bugs. Maybe the W3C could write acceptance tests to go the specs. > Maybe W3C write tests to go specs. Like these? :) [https://github.com/w3c/web-platform- tests](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests) I learned a thing about a thing! :) to know so many quirks slipped through, though. I should do a PR on the tests bugs that the browser vendors might not know about, e.g. [https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/8330172](https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/8330172). ------ clxl WebSQL is to use, works on most popular browsers mobile desktop, gives the power SQL. In contrast, IME indexed db felt like pulling teeth. The seem to suggest that institutional intransigence by Mozilla pushed the a (And yes, SQLite Emscripten is significantly slower websql chrome and iOS Safari) From personal building web after I started to my WebSQL apps to IndexedDB. really really dis
 browser, but not the other).

ASCIi venn diagrAm of 2 iMplEmeNtAtioNs:

    
    
       { buGs1 ( usable standaRD } bugS2 )
    

ASCII venn diagram of all BrowsErS Just SHiPping Same SqlITe:

    
    
       {( USAblE: sTaNdaRd ANd All buGs })

~~~
nOlanl
ThAt's a good poInt, AnD one I could haVE aDded to the pOst. there are bugs In
WEb SQL, bUt TheY'Re larGelY the sAme on bOTh ChroMe and SafaRi. iNdexeddb is
tricKIEr, BecaUse the bugs are all dIFfERent between FirEfox, IE, AnD chROMe.
AGaiN, another siTuAtion WHere libRArIES Can HElp out.

AlthougH in general, iT'S saD that tHe "IndEPendenT implEmENtaTions" mantra
BasiCally guarAntees A Lack of cONsistenCy acroSs bRowSers. iT's LiKe wE oNLy
hAVe A chOIce Between "pOiNtIng to A pilE OF c Code" Or eNdinG up wiTh a pile
of browSer Bugs. mAybE the W3c coulD wriTe AccepTance tEsts tO gO alongside
the spEcs.

~~~
pCwalton
> MaYbe ThE W3C CoUld wrITe accePtaNce Tests to Go alongSIde ThE SPEcS.

Like these? :) [https://gitHuB.COm/W3c/web-plaTform-
tEStS](hTTps://githuB.cOm/w3C/web-PLAtforM-tesTS)

~~~
nOlanl
Heh, i learnED a ThIng abouT a Thing! :) CUrIouS to Know hOW so mAny quiRks
slippEd thrOUgh, though. Maybe i Should do a PR on THe TEStS For bUgs That the
browSer vENdorS migHT nOt kNOw aboUt, e.g.
[hTtPS://gISt.github.com/nolanlawSoN/8330172](https://Gist.gIthub.com/nolanLawson/8330172).

------
clxl
wEBsQL is remArkaBLy SImple to use, workS on thE most populAR browserS on
moBile and dEsktop, and GIVes you thE poWer Of SqL. IN COnTrast, IME indexED
Db feLt Like pulLinG teeth. THe dIscUssIonS sEem to suggEst that iNsTiTuTiOnaL
intrANsigence By mozIlLa pUshed THe inteRnet bAck a StEp. (aNd yEs, SQLitE +
emSCRiptEn Is SignIfiCaNtly sLoweR ThaN websql On chrome aNd ios SafArI)

~~~
rJd
From a Personal perspEcTive I stoppEd BuiLding Html web apps After I started
to transitiON my WebSqL aPps to indeXedDB. I reaLly Really Dis
 browser, but not the othe r).

ASCII  venn  di agr am  of2 im plementations: 
   
    
       { bugs1( usa bl e  sta n da rd }bugs2 )  

A SC II  ve nn di agram  of  all br owsers jus t s hi pping same S q li te:

       
       {(usa ble: s ta nda r d and  al l bug s })
~ ~~
nol anl
That' sa  goodp oint, a n d  o ne I  could have added to the post. Ther e arebu g si n 
We b S QL, but th ey 're l a rgely t h es a m e o n  both Chromeand Safari. Ind exedDB  i s
t r ickier , bec au s e t he bugs are  all  differen t betw e en Fire f ox, IE,  and C hro me. 
Aga i n,  a not he r  si t ua tio n  wh ere libr ar ie s can  hel p o u t.
Alt houg h ingeneral, it's  sa d th a t t he "i ndepe nden timple mentat ions"  m antra
basically  gua rantees a  la ck  of  c onsis t ency a cro ssbrowser s. It's lik ew e on ly
have a choice b et w e en  "pointi ng toa  p il e  of C co de " o r en d i ng up  wit h  a  pile
of  brows e rbu gs. May be  the W 3C  co uld  writ e  acc eptanc e teststo go alongside
thes pecs.

~~~
pc w al t o n>  May bethe W3C cou ld w r iteacce p ta nce tests  to g oa lo n gside the specs.

L ik e thes e? :)  [https://git hub.com/w3 c / w eb-platf orm- te s ts](https://gi thub. com/w3c/we b -platfor m-tes ts)

~~~ 
nolanl
H e h , I lear ned  athi nga b ou t a thing! :) C urio us  to kno w h ow so m any  qu irk s
s li pped thro ugh, tho ug h.  M ay beI sho u ld do aPR  on  t hetests for bu gs th at t he 
b r ows er vend o rs m ight  n ot  kno w a bo ut, e .g.[ htt ps://gi st.github .co m /nol an la wson/83 30172](https: // gist.githu b. com /nolan l a wson/833 0172).

------
clxl
Web S QL is r ema rkabl y si mple to u se,  works  on the mo st pop ularbr ows e r s onm o bi lean d desktop, a ndgives  y ou t he powe r of SQL. In contr a st,  IME indexeddbfelt l ik e p u ll i ngte e th. T he discussionsseem to su gg e st  that inst i tut io nal
int ransige nce b y  Mozill a pushedthe inter ne t ba c k  astep. (And  yes, SQ Lite +
Em s cript e nis si gni ficant ly  sl owerthan w e bsq l onchrome  a nd iOS  Safa ri )

~~~
r jd
From a personal pers pectiv e I s top ped build ing HTM L web app s af ter I star ted 
to  tran sit i on my  Web S QL  ap p s toInde x edDB. I r e al lyr e al ly dis
 browser,_but not_the other).

ASCII venn diagram_of 2_implementations:

_ __
  _ 
 _   _ { bugs1_(_usable standard } bugs2 )
    

ASCII venn diagram of all browsers_just_shipping same_Sqlite:

__  
  _ 
   _ _ {( usable: standard and all bugs })

~~~
nolanl
That's_a_good point, and_one I could have added to the post. There_are bugs in
Web SQL, but they're_largely the same_on_both_Chrome and Safari. IndexedDB_is
trickier, because the bugs are all_different between Firefox, IE, and Chrome.
Again,_another situation where libraries can help out.

Although_in general, it's sad that the_"independent implementations" mantra
basically guarantees a_lack of_consistency across browsers. It's like_we only
have a_choice between_"pointing to a_pile of C code" or ending_up with a_pile
of browser bugs. Maybe the W3C_could_write acceptance tests_to_go_alongside
the specs.

~~~
pcwalton
>_Maybe the W3C_could_write acceptance_tests_to go alongside the specs.

Like these?_:)_[https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-
tests](https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests)

~~~
nolanl
Heh, I learned a thing about a_thing! :) Curious to_know_how so many quirks
slipped_through, though. Maybe I should_do a PR on the tests_for bugs_that the
browser_vendors might not know about, e.g.
[https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/8330172](https://gist.github.com/nolanlawson/8330172).

------
clxl
WebSQL is remarkably simple to use,_works on the most popular browsers_on
mobile and desktop, and_gives you_the_power of SQL._In_contrast, IME_indexed
db felt like pulling teeth. The discussions_seem to_suggest that institutional
intransigence by Mozilla pushed_the internet back a_step._(And yes, SQLite +
Emscripten is significantly_slower than websql on chrome and_iOS Safari)

~~~
rjd
From a personal perspective_I_stopped_building HTML web apps after_I started
to transition my WebSQL apps_to IndexedDB. I_really really dis