Re: SQL Implementation

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne_at_acm.org> wrote in message news:<blq8h0$fbg2m$1_at_ID-125932.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> In the last exciting episode, bbadour_at_golden.net (Bob Badour) wrote:
> > "Ryan" <rgaffuri_at_cox.net> wrote in message news:<fQleb.32913$0Z5.25360_at_lakeread03>...
> >> How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are
> >> certified. Will they be?
> >
> > More importantly, why would you want them to implement SQL99 ?
>
> Presumably because it was a more recent and more "functional" set of
> specifications than the previous standards.

It's certainly a more recent document and adds a lot of complexity. Presuming greater functionality presumes much.

> Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
> explaining why...

It's regressive. Received on Wed Oct 08 2003 - 01:24:36 CEST