| |||||||||||||
Firebird Future DevelopmentFirebird Future DevelopmentPosted Nov 29, 2005 22:36 UTC (Tue) by leandro (guest, #1460)Parent article: Firebird Future Development
They keep talking about SQL 99, but it was canceled out by ISO SQL:2003. Each revision of ISO SQL cancels the previous ones, so that any claims of ISO SQL:(19(89|9[29]) are irrelevant.
(Log in to post comments)
Pedantic Posted Nov 29, 2005 22:59 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] Every DBMS lists its target compliance in terms of the most recent SQL standard to which they aspire. Also each new SQL standards release is mostly built on the previous one. So there is nothing irrelevant in hearing that they've added a number of SQL-99 compliant features. It would be interesting if you saw and listed any of them which are specifically superceded by something in the 2003 version, or even if you linked to some useful summary of the salient differences such as: ACM: SQL-2003 Has been Published
JimD
Firebird Future Development Posted Nov 30, 2005 17:57 UTC (Wed) by fsgg (guest, #34223) [Link] > They keep talking about SQL 99, but it was canceled out by ISO SQL:2003.> Each revision of ISO SQL cancels the previous ones, so that any claims of > ISO SQL:(19(89|9[29]) are irrelevant.
Hm, and wich rdbms you know of does comply fully to any of the aforementioned standards? :-)
Frank
Firebird Future Development Posted Aug 4, 2006 21:40 UTC (Fri) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link] wich rdbms you know of does comply fully to any of the aforementioned standards? None, even if IBM DB2 and PostgreSQL come close, as Mimer do. But they are not RDBMSs; nowadays there aren't many, Alphora Dataphor and Rel come to mind, besides the G-Exec2 project. But my point was that people show know what they talk about.
|
|||||||||||||