Re: Some developer FAQ links need updating

On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:19:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Thanks. I have updated it to:

1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?

There are two major standards, SQL92 and SQL99.

Ah, shouldn't this say "there are three major ..." if you are going to
give URLs for sql2003 ?

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"La soledad es compa��a"

Hello Bruce,

On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 17:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

I have updated it to:

1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?
[...]

Great.

There are two major standards, SQL92 and SQL99.

Shouldn't that be SQL-92 and SQL:2003, by the way? (SQL:2003 was
ratified early 2004.)

--
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark

Troels Arvin wrote:

Hello Bruce,

On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 17:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

I have updated it to:

1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?
[...]

Great.

There are two major standards, SQL92 and SQL99.

Shouldn't that be SQL-92 and SQL:2003, by the way? (SQL:2003 was
ratified early 2004.)

Updated. I wasn't aware SQL:2003 was ratified.

New text is:

1.12) Where can I get a copy of the SQL standards?

There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.
These standards are endorsed by ANSI and ISO. Draft
versions can be download from:
* SQL-92 http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt
* SQL:1999 http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/dbms/Data/Papers-Other/SQL1999/ansi-iso-9075-2-1999.pdf
* SQL:2003 http://www.wiscorp.com/sql/sql_2003_standard.zip

Some SQL standards web pages are:
* http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/links/#standards
* http://www.wiscorp.com/SQLStandards.html
* http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql.html#syntax (SQL-92)
* http://dbs.uni-leipzig.de/en/lokal/standards.pdf (paper)

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.

Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.

Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard.

Wording suggestion?

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.

Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard.

Wording suggestion?

There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are
considered deprecated?

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

There are three major standards: SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003.

Actually, they are just different versions of the single major standard.

Wording suggestion?

There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are
considered deprecated?

I don't think so. Some database say they are SQL99-compliant while not
SQL-2003 compliant.

-- 
  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

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/

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
  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

Peter, Folks:

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.

FWIW, there's two standards that application developers are concerned with as
far as I can tell: SQL92, which is the "stable" standard that ensures
cross-database compatibility (as well as the only standard that is readable)
and SQL2003, which is the current standard and ensures buzzowrd-compliance as
well as future prospects.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are
considered deprecated?

The old ones are certainly not "deprecated".

Personally I find the newer versions to be suffering from uncontrolled
feature bloat and committee-itis.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

There is only one current standard SQL:2003 correct? The rest are
considered deprecated?

The old ones are certainly not "deprecated".

Personally I find the newer versions to be suffering from uncontrolled
feature bloat and committee-itis.

That was my feeling too. I know many cases the older specifications
were clearer.

Anyway, I think the new "There are three versions of the SQL standard"
wording is OK.

-- 
  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