[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6609?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14032445#comment-14032445
 ] 

Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-6609:
-------------------------------------------

{quote}
The wiki page shows a few items that are blank in both columns – F671 
(Subqueries in CHECK), for example. Do you know if those ought to be filled in?
{quote}

I don't see why not, so I updated the ones I found (F262, F671, F672, T191, 
T201, T211-06, T212, T323, T432, T433, T434). I didn't fill in the missing 
value for T322, for now, since that's one of the features no longer listed in 
SQL:2011 part 2.

> 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)

Reply via email to