At this late date, it would be terrible if these two showstopper requirements came as news to the SQLA 2.0 team, but here goes...

First, SQLA 2.0 must be fast, much faster than DCX. The DCX website is tolerated only because of what it is: the one and only online interface for RTFM. If SQLA 2.0 runs on the same geological timescale as DCX, it will fail.

I think DCX's problem may be the enormously bloated responses (700K+) but I am just guessing.

Second, SQLA 2.0 must be Google-searchable. Not the laughable database "search" field you see on the grey links bar (look up, and to the right, on this page), but the "Search SQLA" button above that, at the very top right.

( Don't even think that a full-text database search will meet the need. SQL Anywhere is wonderful, so is full-text searching, but Google it is not and never will be. Suck it up, move on. :)

Here's a sample "Search SQLA" of this website: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=016640858164961096467%3Aqptqxoigjji&ie=UTF-8&q=execute+immediate&sa=Search+SQLA&siteurl=sqla.stackexchange.com%2F

The Search SQLA button is easy to add (it's called "Google Custom Search") if it isn't in SQLA 2.0 already, that's not the point. The point is, the SQLA 2.0 content must be visible to the Google bots, and it must be indexed on a regular basis. That means no clever HTML that Google will interpret as SEO bullsiht.

It took a long time for SQLA 1.0 (this site) to be Google-searchable, and even after the HTML template was stripped of all the fluff and crap it still isn't perfect. But it's good enough. If SQLA 2.0 isn't at least as good, it will fail.