Re: OPINIONS WANTED: regexps in CSS?

There have been two main arguments against regexp: complexity for the user,
and complexity for the implementor. Another recap is at the bottom...

Ian Graham said:
>I now tend to think that adding regex stuff would
>simply cloud this simplicity, and make the whole
>thing harder to use.
Not at all, since no one is *required* to use regexp. Just the same as
having regexp in editors' find and replace dialog boxes doesn't mean
everyone *has" to use them.

>Too slow or cumbersome to implement
Well, we hear from Bill that:
>  Regular expressions are not that expensive if you precompile them and
>just keep the regex_t hanging around instead of the much less efficient way
>of just recompiling the regexp every time.  This is similar to what the
>perl 'study' command does for regexps I believe.
>  And like someone pointed out before, regular expressions have been around
>for years, and highly efficient (and free :) implementations exist for just
>about any platform.  I personally use regexps on 15 different platforms
>(mostly unix, but occasionally crosses over to NT/95 just fine) in my own

So I guess css implementors can always ask Bill for help :-) (sorry bill!)

RECAP again:
*strongly for*
Braden N. McDaniel
Ian Hickson
Todd Fahrner
William M. Perry (Bill)
Aymeric Poulain Maubant
Carl Johan Berglund
Eric A. Meyer (as long as it's not the *only* way of doing things)
Sevo Stille
Tim Bagot

Albert Lunde
Bert Bos
Frank Boumphrey
Ian Graham
*strongly against*
David Perrell
Sho Kuwamoto
Victoria Rosenfeld

*no opinion*
Andrew n Marshall
Stephanos Piperoglou
Steven Pemberton

9 to 7, 3 abstaining.
Seems quite evenly split, so I get the feeling that you (the wg members)
will take the easy option of not including it :-(

Ian Hickson
Version: 3.12   Info:
GIT/M/S d->-- s+: a--- C++(+++)>$ U P L+ !E W+++ N+ o? K? w@ O- !M V- PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t 5+++>++++ X- R(+++) tv b++(+++) DI++ D++ G e(*)>+++++ h!()(--)
!r y?

Received on Wednesday, 11 March 1998 17:36:44 UTC