> Comments?
One reason, perhaps the most important, we mentioned books at all was to
get a common set of reference material for the developers. Also, I've
found some books to be better "references" than others, though this
doesn't necessarily argue for their inclusion in a "suggested list" in
the main docs.
As Mr. Lane points out, we should have the info somewhere. OK with me if
we want to move it to the web site...
btw, the references are old, but has anyone run across a *good* new book
covering SQL99 explicitly? It may be that a 5 year accumulation of books
after SQL92 was published is sufficient to do the topic justice, and
newer books covering the same standard do not cover any new ground.
- Thomas
