- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 00:21:50 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Hi Yves, all, Am 06.01.13 23:51, schrieb Yves Savourel: > 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. Understand, but I disagree with your conclusion and would foresee a different effect. Anyway, if we cannot convince the implementers (= you and Karl) to make a fully compliant implementaiton there is no sense to continue discussing 3). > > 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. Currently the schema just has the data type "string" for its-allowedCharacters.type http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/schemas/its20-types.rng for 3) this would be sufficient, since the validation of the regex is done by the XSD engine, before executing the regex. > The value for its:allowedCharacters simply needs to have an xs:pattern constraint that enforces the sub-set. For 2) we could indeed try to formulate the pattern based on the four items at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0296.html after "fully interoperable:". I don't know if this would be easy, though - do you or somebody else want to give it a try? Best, Felix > > cheers, > -yves > > >
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2013 23:22:14 UTC