Subject Re: SQL Standard (was Circular Foreign Key Dependencies)
--- In IB-Architect@y..., Jim Starkey <jas@n...> wrote:
> At 11:57 AM 3/24/01 -0500, Ann W. Harrison wrote:
> >At 10:32 AM 3/24/2001 -0500, Jim Starkey wrote:
> >> But then
> >>I'm too cheap to buy a copy of the standard. Exactly why
> >>a standard is protected like a classified document is a
> >>different question.
> >
> >Because even standards committees can't live on air.
> >
> This is a little off topic, but let's bat it around a bit
> anyway.
> Let's take a short poll. How many people on this list,
> which, after all, is devoted to the discussion of database
> architecture, have access to a current copy of the official
> SQL standard?

[One might argue that discussion of architecture can occur without
dragging in SQL, but that battle seems to have been lost long ago.]

Nothing like a good poll.

OK, I have a dog-eared official copy of SQL92 [I actually came across
the receipt for it the other day ... ahh, the memories]; a faded but
still official copy of SQL87; and an almost-official copy of SQL99
(well, the parts that are approved, or nearly there, and are of
interest to me).

And by extension, people who know me (even if I don't know them!) have
access to them, too. The little SQL Search Engine that could ... [Not
sure how you'll count that in this poll :-)]

>Of those who have a copy, how many use it
> as a reference work for writing standards compliant application
> code?

Close enough.

> I don't have a copy. In fact I've never seen a copy. When
> I have a question I mooch off Diane Brown.

Exactly! :-)

<Remainder snipped, for the moment ...>

[Time for some fresh air, before the snow flurries start]