SV: CCL Regex proposed change

Alan Kent,

Can't you try to state your motivation for the idea?

Henrik Dahl

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: www-zig-request@w3.org [mailto:www-zig-request@w3.org]Pa vegne af
Alan Kent
Sendt: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 5:11 PM
Til: ZIG
Emne: CCL Regex proposed change


I have lost the old mail (and am too lazy to find it in the archives).
Someone asked (I have a bad memory for names - even for such a small
population of people on this list sorry!) whether it was reasonable
to limit a single digit after ? in a CCL pattern. This was so 12?34
would mean "12" followed by up to 3 chars followed by "4" instead of
"12" followed by up to 34 chars.

I counter proposed to allow double quotes in patterns instead as a
more general solution (solved the above problem and others and is
in line with CCL). The above would then have to be written as 12?3"4",
the quotes making it clear the 4 is not part of the count after the ?.
This also allows the releasing of ? and # so they can be used in a query
Eg: so you can say "#"## which means the character "#" followed by any
two characters. Or ?"?" which means any word ending in a question mark.

I don't recall any follow up. I quite liked the quoting solution myself
as it felt in line with CCL (CCL says use double quotes to release
specail meanings of things). But I proposed it and so am biased I am
sure! :-) Is it a reaonsable change? Does it need to be documented
anywhere?

Alan

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 14:20:36 UTC