- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:55:57 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Malcolm Rowe wrote: >> >> Oh, right, can Pattern not work on fields that can contain newlines >> then, I misunderstood, I thought it could, that's not so useful then. > > Ah, ok, good point, and good question: I'm not sure. If it can, you're right > that '.*' won't be sufficient to match the start. I'd imagine that most > fields would be single-line, though, so this might not be such a problem. Patterns can be used on multiline fields, if you really want to use them there -- although I don't know of a use case. On those fields, to match everything, then something, then everything, you would have to do something like: pattern="[\s\S]* something [\s\S]*" The spec has a note to that effect. It's ugly, but I do not think it will be remotely common enough to be optimising for it at the expense of the other cases. > As a table: > > Designer expects pattern to be: > | a whole-field pattern (common?) | a standard regexp > ---------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------- > No implicit wrapping | Appears to succeed, but doesn't | OK > ---------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------- > Implicit wrapping | OK | Fails immediately > ---------------------+---------------------------------+-------------------- That (and the fact that the majority of people seemed to be in favour of the whole-field pattern model) convinces me that we should stick with the current text. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 08:55:57 UTC