X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BCD329F39 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:10:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76666-05 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:10:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [207.106.42.251]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9001F32BF51 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:10:25 +0100 (BST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i9FGAB207488; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:10:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200410151610.i9FGAB207488@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: Some developer FAQ links need updating In-Reply-To: <200410151409.32652.peter_e@gmx.net> To: Peter Eisentraut Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:10:11 -0400 (EDT) Cc: "Joshua D. Drake" , Troels Arvin , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL108 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200410/37 X-Sequence-Number: 2606 OK, new wording:

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 pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073