Re: Propose we remove SQL-92 as a capability

[Patrice Lapierre <patricel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

  In the previous post, I misinterpret (3) from the original post to
mean "keep SQL-MIN as an exact named subset defined in the SQL-92
standard"

  Obviously it's SQL (-92) and not SQL-MIN that is defined in the SQL-92
standard. 

Therefore instead of the following:

>   Our objective is to build a calendar server, not a minimalist generic
> relational database. As such it seems only natural that 
> our minimal set of requirements differs from SQL-MIN.
> 
>   If the terminology "SQL-MIN" causes confusion, then why not use
> another name for the CAP query language (e.g. CQL-MIN or 
> SQL-CAPMIN). 
> 
>   If the CAP query language turns out to be a super set of SQL-MIN, 
> then great we can still make reference to it, and claim compliance 
> to SQL-MIN. I don't see any real benefits in cutting basic 
> functionality for the sole purpose of using a syntax identical to
> SQL-MIN.
> 

I should have written:

  Basic functionalities a calendar server should should not be
removed, just to maintain a syntactic compatibility with SQL. If the 
terminology "SQL-MIN" is confusing, then why not use another 
name (e.g, CQL-MIN).