Re: [wasm] sqlite as rfc-spec'd web-interchange-format?

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

It's an interesting idea.

There are quite a number of other serialization formats out there including:
bincode, msgpack, protobuf, and of course, IETF's CBOR RFC7049.  Also JSON.
For "opendata" we've would up with CSV, which I really dislike.
{So funny that the UK's data problem with COVID rates was due to some
data flow that went CSV->XLS->database, fixed when they went CSV->XLSX->database,
when there was never a reason to use XLS* at all. So perhaps this argues your
case}

The question you likely need to answer are:

1) do the sqlite people wish to turn change control over to the IETF?

2) Given the Library of Congress statement, is there actually a net benefit
   to the world?  Maybe it's already moving to defacto standard anyway.
   Would the IETF process help?  Given the stability, would there be
   any benefit for IANA?

2B) There may be NAFTA Article 10 ("Performance Specification") reasons
    for having an RFP'able specification.

3) Are there enough implementers who are not sqlite.org who would benefit?
   Is the wasm-sqlite from sqlite.org (I don't know).

I looked through the specification, and turning it into an RFC wouldn't be
hard.  You may wish to look at the work in the CELLAR WG, which is doing
something similar for archival formats for AV.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide