W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xformsusers@w3.org > March 2018

Re: 7.2.7 card-number type

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:07:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAc0PEWKyJO-Jk0w4M5qGoYN3Zn-wW7sL3wrrnB8S=5xw+J0Mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: XForms <public-xformsusers@w3.org>
We can do that, although I see this type more as a marker type anyway,
since for useful validation, the `is-card-number()` function is required
anyway.

-Erik

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:19 AM, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
wrote:

> Yes, sorry, I should have been clearer. Since our inbuilt types now now
> longer also accept empty string as a possible value since we fixed
> validation+required, I believe card-number should be [0-9]+ and not [0-9]*.
>
> Steven
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:20:22 +0100, Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
> wrote:
>
> The regex has `[0-9]*` so clearly zero or more digits were intended.
>
> This was done before we fixed the validation to allow optional-but-empty
> fields to be valid, and in that case having zero digits allowed supporting
> optional fields. Just a guess.
>
> -Erik
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl
> > wrote:
>
>> "7.2.7 card-number type
>>
>> This type represents identity, debit and credit card numbers; it is a
>> pattern restriction on xs:string to zero or more digits (0 - 9)."
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/community/xformsusers/wiki/XForms_2.0#card-number_type
>>
>> Presumably this ought to read "one or more digits".
>>
>> Agree?
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 March 2018 16:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:49 UTC