OK, new wording:
<P>There are three versions of the SQL standard: SQL-92, SQL:1999,
and SQL:2003. They are endorsed by ANSI and ISO. Draft versions
can be download from:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 15. Oktober 2004 05:24 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > I don't think so. Some database say they are SQL99-compliant while not
> > SQL-2003 compliant.
>
> Clearly, consenting parties are free to agree on making their products conform
> to any standards document, be it old or new or deprecated or silly. In the
> same way, someone could make a product that is certified for PostgreSQL
> 7.2.1. Or someone could write an HTML-compliant browser, only that it might
> be HTML 3.2.
>
> Since we have limited resources, I think it's OK that we concentrate on
> working with the latest official standards version. And because the latest
> standards version is modularized and has individual feature lists and
> packages, it would be a lot easier for us to look good, and it would be more
> useful for users to, say, specify a workable set of requirements for their
> applications.
>
> Nevertheless, it would surely be useful to list SQL92 and SQL99 as older
> versions, just like many people still code to HTML 4.01 instead of XHTML 1.1,
> and just like many people still use PostgreSQL 7.2.1, inspite of it not
> conforming to any standard, as far as I know.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut
> http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
