Re: features required for SQL 92 conformance

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Dan,
>
> > > > Claims of "conformance" are a bit specious when there isn't much of a
> > > > standards body on this anymore. And vendors that consider themselves
> > > > commercially important are quite prepared to ignore standards whenever
> > > > it seems convenient.
> > >
> > > Yeah, why do you think they disbanded the compliance team in the first
> > > place? Just ask Joe Celko ....
> >
> > I haven't spoken with Joe in years.. why don't you tell us?
>
> I thought it was self-evident from my statement.

It wasn't. That's why I asked. :) I'm sure I wasn't the only one.

> The largest vendors weren't happy with their scores on SQL
> compliance, and by the late 90's had come to dominate the SQL committee.
> So they eliminated conformance testing so that Oracle, SQL Server, etc.
> wouldn't look so bad.

Ahhh, this I did not know.

> And Joe resigned the committee ... probably over that and other things.

Thank you.

--
Dan Langille - BSDCan: http://www.bsdcan.org/