Re: Ineffective pattern for CURIE

I recommend you look at http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core - there is a 
better pattern for CURIE in there.  It is the current best definition of 
CURIE.

On 5/9/2012 10:25 PM, Brian M. Ames wrote:
> The pattern given for CURIE in 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-curie-20101216 is ineffective for 
> validation since it matches anything but an empty string. That is to 
> say (([\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*)?:)?.+ is no different than .+ alone. An 
> alternative would be (([\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*)?:).+|([^:])+ which would 
> require any CURIE without a prefix but containing a colon to be 
> prefixed with a colon delimiter.
> Example
> a:1:more:time
> :1:more:time
> 1 more time
> would all be valid but
> 1:more:time
> would not be.
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120

Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 20:16:16 UTC