> Begging to differ, no vendor that I'm aware of claims to be compliant with
a
> paper or textbook. They tend to comply with an adopted standard such as:
>
> ANSI/ISO/IEC 9075-1(through 5):1999
> ISO/IEC 9075-1(through 5):1999
Yes, a strange thing too IMHO. The "SQL" standard defines a so-called
standard for accessing (relational) data. But it doesn't define a relational
database engine - it defines a way to access data it and partly based on the
relational theory.
> Collectively known as SQL:1999. While I'd offer that MySQL *is* a
relational
> database, (even though I'm very new to the environment); I think there's
some
> ways to go before MySQL has core compatibility with SQL:1999. That's
what's
> more important to me, the adoption of accepted standards.
Ha, I beg to differ when it comes to "accepted standard" here... it might be
some
kind of standard, but the implementations are almost always different.
And I believe the SQL standard has gone waaaay beyond it by defining
triggers
and procedures as well. Then again - if the (PSQL) language would be
standard,
you would be able to switch engines pretty quick :-)
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird & MS SQL Server.
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
