- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 15:51:48 -0700
- To: <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Hi Felix, all, > 2) would very likely mean a substantive change, that is another > last call period. It would also mean that we need tests > (positive and negative) for the regex subset. > 3) would be a burden on implementers, but would not mean new tests: > we can defer that to XML Schema, like we don't provide tests for XPath. > ... > co-chair hat off: I would not underestimate the burden of 2) creating tests > for our "own" regex syntax. Without such tests very likely creators of "allowed characters" > regex' would just do what they want, and sometimes the regex would work, > sometimes not. > As Jirka said at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0298.html > The "use XSD" approach puts a burden on implementers (for sure), but it has a > benefit for users and interoperability. I think using XSD RE is going *against* interoperability. That's the whole point of the comment. But regardless, it seems to me that for option 2) the schema can be used to 'test' the sub-set as much as it does 'test the current XSD RE. The value for its:allowedCharacters simply needs to have an xs:pattern constraint that enforces the sub-set. cheers, -yves
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 22:52:17 UTC