Subject: Re: Propose we remove SQL-92 as a capability

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:34:32 -0500

>   The dot is SQL-92 (in "7.9 <query specification")

But it doesn't mean the same thing.

Syntax versus semantics.  How would you react if somebody in, say, the W3C 
developed a spec using iCalendar, and said, "OK, and the UID property will 
contain the User ID of the sender.  It's valid iCalendar syntax, right?"

/=============================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer           |
[email-masked]  |Incentive Systems, Inc.      |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.      |
|=============================================================|
|Almost no one has ever wanted a 1/4" drill bit; all they ever|
|wanted was a 1/4" hole.                                      |
\=============================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:24:08 -0700

> But it doesn't mean the same thing.

Yes it does. Table.Column where OBJECT is the table
and OBJECT.contains is the column.

Why? - Because we have defined in (if we reach consensus)
the 6 rules.

IF the data looks like tables, columns, then that IS exactly
what SQL does with them.