[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14032453#comment-14032453
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-6609:
-------------------------------------------
{quote}
Also the first sentence is clearly wrong now (there are more than 4 levels of
support, right?).
{quote}
That's a good question. The terminology seems to have changed between 92 and
99. Now, it seems, there are primarily two levels: mandatory and optional. I
don't find any mentioning of entry, transitional, intermediate or full in the
2011 version of the standard. Mandatory and optional are the same categories
that are used on the wiki, so I'd say we should just stick with them.
> 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
> Attachments: DERBY-6609.diff, DERBY-6609.stat, DERBY-6609.zip
>
>
> 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)
