[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14042192#comment-14042192
 ] 

Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-6609:
-------------------------------------------

Sure, I think you can just go ahead and commit what you have now.

It sounds as if you are waiting for some more information from me. I'm afraid 
I've forgotten what extra information I've promised to dig up. Looks like I 
might not have gone through the features listed in my 16/Jun/14 15:01 comment 
and checked which of them are actually supported. Was that it?

> 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
>            Assignee: Kim Haase
>         Attachments: DERBY-6609-2.diff, DERBY-6609-2.zip, 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)

Reply via email to