[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Kim Haase updated DERBY-6609:
-----------------------------
Attachment: DERBY-6609.zip
DERBY-6609.stat
DERBY-6609.diff
Attaching DERBY-6609.diff, DERBY-6609.stat, and DERBY-6609.zip, which provide
not so much a patch as an experiment to see if this is the way we want to go.
There's some missing information; we have a list of the new SQL:2011 features
we implemented but not the ones we didn't implement.
A src/ref/rrefsqlstandard.dita
A src/ref/rrefsqlstandardnot.dita
M src/ref/refderby.ditamap
Also the first sentence is clearly wrong now (there are more than 4 levels of
support, right?).
And so on.
> Documentation for SQL features should reflect current standard
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6609
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Documentation
> Affects Versions: 10.11.0.0
> Reporter: Kim Haase
> Attachments: DERBY-6609.diff, DERBY-6609.stat, DERBY-6609.zip
>
>
> We document Derby as an SQL-92 database. This standard is now very old, and
> we should describe how Derby conforms to the most current standard
> (SQL:2011). Knut Anders Hatlen listed the relevant features in a comment to
> DERBY-6605.
> This will involve at a minimum replacing the "Derby support for SQL-92
> features" topic
> (http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.10/ref/rrefsql9241891.html) with a new
> one that describes Derby's support for current features, with notes as needed
> indicating when the support is partial. Only features Derby supports, fully
> or partially, should be listed. We should state that features not listed are
> not supported.
> The information would be taken from
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/SQLvsDerbyFeatures (which currently goes only
> through the 2003 standard). Listing the Feature IDs in the documentation
> would also be helpful.
> Other topics should be changed as needed. For example, is the term
> "SQL92Identifier" still correct?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
