Re: [Issue-67] [Action-385] Work on regex for validating regex subset proposal

Hi Jirka,

Am 08.04.13 18:05, schrieb Jirka Kosek:
> On 8.4.2013 17:01, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Thanks a lot, Pablo. I think your regex does allow things that would be
>> forbidden with the ABNF I had proposed (e.g. starting without "["), so
>> maybe it is better not to have the ABNF. Otherwise users might be
>> confused. How about closing issue-67 by putting your regex into the
>> schema and change the allowed characters like this:
> I'm strongly against putting this regex into schema. Even with the
> effort which has been put into this expression we can't be sure whether
> it's correct, whether it accepts all valid inputs and refuses all
> invalid inputs.
> If we are going to have own syntax for RE we should properly and
> formally define it. One common way of doing this is to create grammar
> for our RE subset expressed in flavour of BNF. Such grammar should be
> part of the spec.
> Once we have grammar we can decide whether it can even be rewritten into
> regular expression. Anyway such rewrite is then mechanical and will
> produce similarly unreadable expression as we have now. But we will have
> grammar which is easy to digest.
>> - drop reference to XML Schema regex, as suggested in the original
>> comment from Yves?
> We should reference some specification of regex otherwise we will have
> to define semantics of our regex subset.

Trying to move this forward:
Would this ABNF make sense to you
("BMP+escapes" still needs to be defined)
and the users of this data category? It is fairly restrictive, but seems 
to fulfill all needs.

- Felix

P.S.: different topic - I had the same issues as Pablo with the 
validation with the testsuite: I had to use my local copy of jing, the 
one in github didn't work.

>     Jirka

Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 16:16:30 UTC