- Opera: "At opera, we implemented web db [...] it’s likely we will [ship it] as people have built on it"
- Google [Chrome]: "We’ve implemented WebDB … we’re about to ship it"
- Microsoft [IE]: "We don’t think we’ll reasonably be able to ship an interoperable version of WebDB"
- Mozilla [Firefox]: "We’ve talked to a lot of developers, the feedback we got is that we really don’t want SQL [...] I don’t think mozilla plans to ship it."
Mozilla's argument that "we really don't want SQL" is far more troublesome and posts like this follow an increasingly common pattern:
- Someone proposes SQL for something (given we've got 4 decades of experience with it)
- Religious zealots trash talk SQL, offering a dozen or so NoSQL alternatives (all of which are in varying stages of [early] development)
- "My NoSQL db is bigger/better/faster than yours" debate ensues
- Nobody does anything
In any case the API [cs]hould be versioned so we can offer alternatives like WebSimpleDB in the future. Right now though the open web is being held back by outdated standards and proprietary offerings controlled by single vendors (e.g. Adobe's AIR and Microsoft's Silverlight) are lining up to fill in the gap. Those suggesting "it's worth stepping back" because "there are other options that should be considered" which "might serve those needs better" would want to take a long, hard look at whether their proposed alternatives are really ready for prime time, or indeed even necessary. To an outsider trying to solve real business problems today a lot of it looks like academic wankery.