[Bug 11125] New: Regex grammar for 1.1 renders some 1.0 regexes invalid

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11125

           Summary: Regex grammar for 1.1 renders some 1.0 regexes invalid
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: needsAgreement
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2
        AssignedTo: David_E3@VERIFONE.com
        ReportedBy: David_E3@VERIFONE.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
                CC: cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com


>From the telcon 2010-10-22:

Originating with Michael Kay's email at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2010Oct/0006.html

<dezell> MK: the rules weren't clear before (whether or not +- is allowed) or
backtracking, etc.
<dezell> MK: now they are very clear, and many existing schemas may break.
<dezell> DE: will people use a "compatibility" mode.
<dezell> MSM: not great.
<dezell> DE: have we made a mistake by making the rules too explicit?
<dezell> MSM: no no no.  We need to figure out ways to get clarity without
breaking things.
<dezell> MK: won't change the grammar, only the prose following rule 81 in the
grammar.
<dezell> MSM: I think we need a story about the topic in the Note, about what
happens with more than one hyphen.
<dezell> MK: we could change the rule to say if you can't parse as part of a
character range then backtrack.
<dezell> ...: I think that's consistent with most regex systems.
<dezell> SG: so I'm not in favor of forcing backtracking if we can achieve the
goal without it.
<dezell> MSM: 1) we need tests that illuminate this segment of the grammar
<dezell> ...: should show how existing regex libraries and tools work.
<dezell> ...: 2) then we should study current behavior.
<dezell> ...: 3) then we can decide what we need to do.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 16:34:04 UTC