W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: numbering

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 19:03:58 +0200
Message-ID: <26b395e60903050903i74efc6d1u1351929375f9c911@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:15 AM, I wrote:
> The proposal is to only allow [1-9][0-9]*, which should solve this.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Frederick Hirsch
<frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> This does not seem quite right since it requires 10 or more signatures?
>
> e.g. disallows signature01.xml, signature02.xml etc
> and requires signature10.xml etc

I'm not certain about the []* notation.

I was hoping for <leading non-zero digit> and <0 or more digits>

> I propose the following alternative in section 5.3
>
> Naming convention for a distributor signature:"signature" [0-9]* ".xml"
>
> Every distributor signature MUST have the same number of digits in the file
> name and use leading zeros for numbers less than the maximum numeric value.
> This is to enable consistent sorting.
>
> To give an example, if nine distributor signatures are expected the numbers
> should range from 01 to 09, e.g. signature01.xml to signature09.xml.
> ---
>
> Does this make sense?

That'd work too, and i suppose would be easier on a sorter since it
could do an alpha sort.
Although you need to explain what to do if there are only
signature01.xml and signature1.xml, does the engine always favor the
longest string and ignore all shorter sets?

Either way, validators need instructions, for yours it would need to
warn about signatures which have the wrong number of digits.
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 17:04:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT