Which part of "is not a w3c standard and not any standards track" do you not understand?
Do you understand that for something to become a standard, it needs two independent implementations? And a consensus on API?
Do you understand that "not on any standards track" means it's Chrome and only Chrome pushing this? That Firefox isn't interested in this either?
Do you understand that blaming Apple for everything is borderline psychotic? And that Chrome implementing something at neck-breaking pace doesn't make it a standard?
There are a lot of reasons why people have such extreme differing opinions on this.
I for one, am still salty about the death of WebSQL due to "needing independent implementations". Frankly put, I think that rule is entirely BS and needs to be completely removed.
Sure, there is only one implementation of WebSQL (SQLite) but it is extremely well audited, documented and understood.
Now that WebSQL is gone, what has the standards committee done to replace it? Well, now they suggest using IndexedDB or bringing your own SQLite binary using WASM.
IndexedDB is very low level, which is why almost no one uses it directly. And it also has garbage performance, to the point where it's literally faster for you run SQLite on top of IndexedDB instead: https://jlongster.com/future-sql-web
So ultimately if you want to have any data storage on the web that isn't just key-value, you now have to ship your own SQLite binary or use some custom JS storage library.
So end users now have to download a giant binary blob, that is also completely unauditable. And now that there is no standard storage solution, everybody uses a slew of different libraries to try to emulate SQL/NoSQL storage. And this storage is emulated on top of IndexedDB/LocalStorage so they are all trying to mangle high level data into key-value storage so it ends up being incredibly difficult to inspect as an end-user.
As a reminder: when the standards committee fails to create a good standard, the result is not "everybody doesn't do this because there is no standard", it is "everybody will still do this but they will do it 1 million different ways".
- One month later, on Jan 4, 2021, received input: this is not even close to being even a draft for a standard
- Two months later, on March 9, 2021, enabled by default and shipped in Chrome 89, and advertised it as fait accompli on web.dev
- Two more months later: added 2669 lines of text, "hey, there's this "standard" that we enabled by default, so we won't be able to change it since people probably already depend on it, why don't you take a look at it?"
--- end quote ---
The requirement to have at least two independent implementations is there to try and prevent this thing exactly: the barreling through of single-vendor or vendor-specific implementations.
Even though several implementations existed, the API was still in flux, and the spec had a trivially reproduced race condition. Despite that, Google said that their own project needed it and shipped it as is, and they wouldn't revert it.
Of course over the course of several years since then they changed/updated the API to reflect consensus, and fixed the race condition.
Again, the process is supposed to make such behavior rare.
What we have instead is Google shitting all over standards processes and people cheering them on because "moving the web forward" or something.
There's no actual specification for SQLite. You could say "fuck it, we ship SQLite", but then... which version? Which features would you have enabled? What would be your upgrade path alongside SQLite? etc.
What part of "cry me a river" you didn't understand? Don't go crazy because at least one of the browsers propose things that move the web forward. Geez, you should take a break from the internet. So many "?"
