As you probably know, SQL99 has dropped the rather useless
categorizations of "basic", "intermediate", and "advanced" SQL
compliance and instead lists a large number of labeled features. I've
put these into an appendix for the docs (not yet committed to cvs).

The list is organized as a (for now) three column table, with "Feature",
"Description", and "Comment" as the three column headers. This is a
relatively long list, covering several printed pages.

So, a question: should I list all features in the same table, with the
comment field indicating if something is not (yet) supported, or should
I split the features into two tables for supported and unsupported
features? The former keeps all of the information together if someone is
looking something up by feature, and the latter reduces the number of
required comments and makes it easier to see the complete list of
supported features.

                    - Thomas

Fri, 14 Jun 2002 07:59:01 -0700
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
SQL99 feature list
Thomas,

> So, a question: should I list all features in the same table, with
> the
> comment field indicating if something is not (yet) supported, or
> should
> I split the features into two tables for supported and unsupported
> features? The former keeps all of the information together if someone
> is
> looking something up by feature, and the latter reduces the number of
> required comments and makes it easier to see the complete list of
> supported features.

Can't we put the list in a database and generate both? <grin>

Seriously, I vote for 2 lists.   

-Josh

Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:10:45 -0700
"Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: SQL99 feature list