[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CAP: Badly formed SQL
>And we agreed the syntax would be SQL. And in DC we reviewed the
>proposal made in Orlando and decided that it would be SQL syntax
>if at all possible.
Not 100% in accordance with the postings in the archives
>We also agreed that we would *not* have an SQL-like syntax
We did not! I was in DC and recall no such agreement. To confirm I just dont have a faulty memory I went back to the archives. Searching I found the following relevant postings on using SQL or an alternative.
On 5-Apr-1999, Pat posted the "Minutes of 44th IETF CALSCH sessions" which contain:
>Why is it not just SQL? We already have concept of name=value so use
>it. Still, why just not use SQL?? Don't want to get raw SQL data that
>doesn't map 100% to iCal. Stuff in SQL may not be desirable now (ie:
>weighting of results) but may want later. If we use SQL syntax then we
>gain an already understood behavior; We just didn't want to get the
>mods that we’d have to make to avoid non-doable stuff (ie: “today”);
>There could be problems w/vendor extensions of SQL that dont interop so
>a strict separate syntax prevents that. Revisit on the list (did in Dec
>98 but no responses).
On 21-May-1999, she posted the "Atlanta Minutes - WARNING Large document" which contained:
>Need to revisit SQL like query - Doug to work on this
[Some SQL tech diving and]
>Need to revisit SQL/SQL like query issues (Doug) - 2 wks
>- Iteration on result
>- Searching (parametric/content)
>- Clarify maxresults semantics
10-Dec-1999, she posted the "CALSCH DC Minutes" which has:
>The query subset needs more work. It's modeled after SQL. Queries are
>non-trivial so we chose sql-like, rather than force implementors to
>force SQL implementation. We came up with a subset. Need to guarantee
>that queries look a certain way. Need to put together a small set of
>It was suggested that if someone has an SQL engine could they use it.
>Syntax is ical - structure is SQL. There was a broad discussion about
>putting SQL in place.
Note that the 3rd sentence of the DC notes says we WOULD use SQL-like, not SQL...
I tried to find some Orlando meeting minutes but none show up in my archives. I could have missed 'em so I searched for "Orlando" and "SQL" and I found only 1 relevant posting. On 3-Mar-1999 Doug replied to John under the subject "Re: CAP Searching Proposal" with:
>The problem with the DASL proposal is that its ~almost~ SQL. And I think
>that is an issue. I talked to Alex Hoppman about this in Orlando;
>he told me the reason that its NOT SQL, is because they needed some
>features that were not in SQL. I still don't see why they can't say
>is SQL (version xxx) + plus this or - that's our plan.
I think that all this SQL legal and SQL vs SQL-like traffic is just spinning wheels since its not something the WG has agreed on. Perhaps once I catch up w/the backlog from the past few days Ill find it all moot but I want it to be clear that we never did accept SQL (any version) as the query lingua despite claims to the contrary.
Bruce Kahn INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration Pone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...