[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14029271#comment-14029271
]
Kim Haase commented on DERBY-6609:
----------------------------------
Thanks, Knut, for the comments. It appears that there may be time to implement
this for 10.11 after all, so I plan to start work. We were thinking of
including in the table(s) only the features that are fully or partially
implemented in SQL;2011.
Would there be any value in a separate topic listing unimplemented features,
just so people can verify that we didn't just forget to include them in the
table? Or would retrieving a list of unimplemented features new in SQL:2011 be
too hard?
In the wiki, I see some features are shown as No for SQL-99 and as N/A for
SQL-2003. Does this mean that the feature was dropped from the SQL standard at
SQL-2003?
> Documentation for SQL features should reflect current standard
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6609
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Documentation
> Affects Versions: 10.11.0.0
> Reporter: Kim Haase
>
> We document Derby as an SQL-92 database. This standard is now very old, and
> we should describe how Derby conforms to the most current standard
> (SQL:2011). Knut Anders Hatlen listed the relevant features in a comment to
> DERBY-6605.
> This will involve at a minimum replacing the "Derby support for SQL-92
> features" topic
> (http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.10/ref/rrefsql9241891.html) with a new
> one that describes Derby's support for current features, with notes as needed
> indicating when the support is partial. Only features Derby supports, fully
> or partially, should be listed. We should state that features not listed are
> not supported.
> The information would be taken from
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/SQLvsDerbyFeatures (which currently goes only
> through the 2003 standard). Listing the Feature IDs in the documentation
> would also be helpful.
> Other topics should be changed as needed. For example, is the term
> "SQL92Identifier" still correct?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
