W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 1998

Re: OPINIONS WANTED: regexps in CSS? (Re: Suggestion for Attribute Selectors)

From: Sevo Stille <sevo@inm.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 12:17:32 +0100
Message-ID: <350672CC.E155BDAA@inm.de>
To: Victoria Rosenfeld <jiggy@holly.ColoState.EDU>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Victoria Rosenfeld wrote:

> > but they must not be required for using CSS. I'd suggest that anything that
> > can be expressed in a RE in CSS should be able to be expressed in other
> > means, even if they are much more verbose.
> >
> Point taken. And agreed with. And if REs must not be required, they why
> put them in the specs? What does including them add?

Now, it certainly does not make sense to invent a new method. While there are some
more complex forms of pattern matching syntax extending RE (e.g. perl, agrep),
we'll have to keep to some common level. Going by what is implemented in common
software and across the WWW, I don't see any options beyond strictly literal
matching (which would require multiple entries in style sheets to cope with
language variants), shell metacharacters (more common than REs, but prone to fail
in ambiguous cases) and REs (which would replace the shell "*" with ".*" for
elementary wildcard matches - something even beginners should be able to
Considering the disadvantages of either, I'd prefer RE. After all, nothing does
prevent beginners from using elementary wildcard syntax like "fr.*". That power
users are able to write "^ *[Ff][Rr](-[A-Za-z]+)? *$" etc. to do a more waterproof
match for the same purpose does not mean that all regexps have to be as powerful
and complicated.


Sevo Stille
Received on Wednesday, 11 March 1998 06:23:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:46 UTC