A standard needs to have multiple open source implementations to be accepted. What you're asking is basically to reimplement sqlite, feature for feature, bug for bug, and keep up with it as soon as it changes. No wonder no one wanted to try that.

What about JSON? That became a standard without multiple implementations or even any discussion about what people would’ve wanted, like comments.

I just don’t think there’s any rule that says that we need multiple implementations of thing to make it a standard. Also, we already have a standard for SQL and they could’ve just used the parts of SQLite that were compliant with that.

JSON became an official standard in 2013, by which time many open-source, independent implementations existed.

> I just don’t think there’s any rule that says that we need multiple implementations of thing to make it a standard

There are rules that say that we need multiple implementations of thing to make it a standard:

* The IETF requires it to be accepted as "Internet standard", ie the highest form: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Standard#Standardizat...

* The W3C strongly desires that proposed standards have multiple, independent implementations to advance to the state of "Proposed reccomendation": https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfr

> Also, we already have a standard for SQL and they could’ve just used the parts of SQLite that were compliant with that.

That would probably have been the best solution, I agree. And then people would have complained about bloat again, that browsers are now required to expose a SQL engine, that they are too big, etc...

I know that you need multiple implementation of a proposed standard to make it a standard. What I was trying to (and failed to) convey is that you don’t need multiple implementations of a thing, as in SQLite itself, to let that become the standard because it’s mostly already compliant with SQL, the standard.

Anyway, there are multiple implementations of SQLite itself. It’s been implemented in JavaScript and .NET and Java as well I believe.

> Also, we already have a standard for SQL

I know right, there are in fact several (which may have been part of the problem). Most SQL database vendors tend to stray slightly (or not so slightly) from the SQL standard that they target; SQLite is no exception.

Just unfortunate that the browser vendors couldn't come together and build a client-side SQL based API rather than punting and implementing a very basic key/value store on top of which someone will eventually reimplement SQLite. It's like 5 or 10 years from now we'll have what we had 10+ years ago, such progress!

they said. it is not a standard.