Simon Riggs wrote:
The main point is that SQL:1999 no longer has any validity as a standard
and has been wholly superceded by SQL:2003. SQL:1999 has interest only
for historical reasons, for those who care when a particular feature was
introduced.


Right; I guess the question is whether we should attempt to cater to the latter group. Personally I think most users are only concerned with whether a given feature conforms to the most recent version of the standard. Including a haphazard mix of SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003 just leads to confusion (if Simon didn't notice this convention, it is a fair bet not many users did, either). If people are actually concerned about what version of the standard introduced a particular feature, they are better, more authoritative sources with this information (e.g. the standards themselves).

There is also the separate issue of whether we should refer to SQL:2003 or "the SQL standard". On second thought, I'm happy with the latter.

-Neil

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to