Talk:List of SQL reserved words

Wasn't the table sortable (by SQL-2016/product) earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.126.226 (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The new green check-boxes may look fine, but now it's very hard to remember which column is which product if you scroll down a couple of 100 rows. For example, which databases have PREPARE as reserved word?

Was much easier to see with the older table, where each box had product name if reserved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.103.34 (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I think this article has a number of problems, with the biggest being that the current table is too long. It would make more sense to have a primary list of keywords (probably according to the current SQL standard) and secondary lists that show the additional keywords other products offer. Thrakkx (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the reason that Wikipedia doesn't support scrollable table bodies with fixed headers, e.g.: https://www.w3docs.com/tools/code-editor/11516? It's a combination of the CSS attributes overflow-y and position: sticky.--Kelti (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed back to the original version with product names instead of the checkmark - simply because there are no "scrollable table bodies with fixed header" as Kelti has pointed out - and it's too hard to remember which column belongs to which product when scrolling up and down.


 * Also, a green checkmark indicates something positive, like feature supported. But reserved words are never positive. If they are according to the SQL standard, they are neutral, but if they are product specific they are negative, and should perhaps have a red checkmark.


 * The table is big, I know. But since you can order it by product it's no deal. Splitting it would just make things harder.Fjerdingen (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)