On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:03:23PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 14:48 +0100, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> > > There is only one SQL Standard and it is called SQL:2003. It
> > > supercedes all previous versions, so quoting compliance with
> > > multiple versions has no meaning. (If you are compliant with
> > > SQL-92 but not SQL:2003 then you are no longer compliant with the
> > > SQL Standard). There are no RDBMS yet fully compliant with
> > > SQL:2003.
> > This is correct, but ...
> > As you state, no RDBMS is fully compliant with SQL:2003. So in most
> > cases people go and look, what else from previous standards is
> > available.
> "Previous standards" are historical, so comparing current features with
> the previous standard is like saying I would have come first if I'd gone
> back in time to the Moscow Olympics.
What if no one really implements the current standard?
> It's much easier just to mention the present standard and our present
> level of compliance to it.
Anyway, i changed the first chapter, but i'm not very happy with the
second chapter on the first page. Someone a good proposal here?
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
German PostgreSQL User Group
In response to
pgeu-general by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2008-01-21 09:53:12|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Europe statutes : recap|
|Previous:||From: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum||Date: 2008-01-20 14:24:55|
|Subject: Re: Flyer nr. 1|