W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2010

Re: ISSUE-137 case-insensitive: Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:09:23 +0100
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vlyvdtrqidj3kv@dhcp-190.linkoping.osa>
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:48:01 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> I agree with Ian that an ideal solution would be to allow something
> like the (?i...) syntax described in the bug. This is better both
> because it allows all features to be expressed as a single string, and
> because it allows using both case sensitive and case insensitive
> matching in the same expression.
>
> However given that it doesn't seem like this is about to happen for
> ECMAScript, I think we'll have to live with the reality of that and
> add a separate attribute.

What makes you say that it doesn't seem like it's about to happen? Has  
anyone proposed adding ?i to regexps in TC39?


>> In fairness, of the current three ECMAScript regexp flags, only two  
>> seem likely to have a useful effect on the pattern attribute,  
>> specifically the "m" and "i" flags, but not the "g" flag.
>
> Actually, since <input> for all relevant types can't contain newlines
> (i think), the "m" flag doesn't seem useful here either.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 18:09:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:06 UTC