[jmesserly]

Yeah. It would be the same problem that WebSQL had: http://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/

As much as I was sad to see it go, I sympathize with their problem. If you just have a single C/C++ implementation with no spec, it's a lot harder to know, as a user/web developer, what the correct behavior is and what you can rely on.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Indeed.

It's a shame WebSQL died, though, since I would have loved to have had SQLite in the browser. Maybe the solution would have been to specify a similar, new, SQL database for the web? I would have liked that more than IndexedDB.

[dragonwriter]

> Maybe the solution would have been to specify a similar, new, SQL database for the web?

That would certainly have been a solution, but I think one of the reasons WebSQL went with "use SQLite" as a shortcut was that it was a lot easier. If you specify a reasonably-implementable subset of SQL, you are stuck with that, and you can't piggyback on SQLite maintenance.

I think the decision to abandon WebSQL for IndexedDB rather than expand the spec into something where independent implementations were feasible was probably based on the cost/benefit perceived with having to maintain a separate, browser-specific RDBMS implementation.

[ConstantineXVI]

Why not a JS implementation of a SQL database?