From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Some developer FAQ links need updating
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:09:32 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	Troels Arvin <troels@arvin.dk>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
References: <200410150324.i9F3Owt21113@candle.pha.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <200410150324.i9F3Owt21113@candle.pha.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200410151409.32652.peter_e@gmx.net>

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/