Simon Riggs wrote:
> The main point is that SQL:1999 no longer has any validity as a standard
> and has been wholly superceded by SQL:2003. SQL:1999 has interest only
> for historical reasons, for those who care when a particular feature was
> introduced.
Right; I guess the question is whether we should attempt to cater to the
latter group. Personally I think most users are only concerned with
whether a given feature conforms to the most recent version of the
standard. Including a haphazard mix of SQL-92, SQL:1999, and SQL:2003
just leads to confusion (if Simon didn't notice this convention, it is a
fair bet not many users did, either). If people are actually concerned
about what version of the standard introduced a particular feature, they
are better, more authoritative sources with this information (e.g. the
standards themselves).
There is also the separate issue of whether we should refer to SQL:2003
or "the SQL standard". On second thought, I'm happy with the latter.
-Neil