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

Re: numbering

From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:40:22 +0100
Message-ID: <21d9ade60903051140k49baa13bl1c073da34c7b641f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: "timeless@gmail.com" <timeless@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
well I wonder why this regex disallow all multiple of 10

signature10.xml is not possible any more

Xmlizer

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Frederick Hirsch
<Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> I see, perhaps we can combine the text I proposed with a variant on the bnf
> you mentioned;
>
> signature[0-9]*[1-9].xml
>
> and add to my proposal the additional text:
>
> If a widget resource contains signatures that are not consistent in the
> number of digits in the names then the result of ordering will be
> implementation dependent.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:03 PM, ext timeless wrote:
>
>> 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 19:41:02 GMT

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