- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:08:17 +0100 (CET)
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
- cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Rich, I think BNF would be more understandable to the readers of
the spec than a regexp, but I think we need a schema type, too.
Even if we keep BNF or regexp.
Oh, BTW, the format is not '\*(\w+\d+)*' (what you probably
wanted to write) but it is '(\*|\d+)(\w+\d+)*' for the asterisk
needn't be there. And \d+ does not handle the restriction that
the number must not be zero so the regexp would grow even more.
(I hope I got my regexps right in the common (?) regexp dialect.)
I'd prefer that we have the Schema for formal definition and the
BNF for simple definition. 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Rich Salz wrote:
> I think it would be easier to represent it as a string using a regular
> expression , as in
> '\*[\w*\d+]*'
> Asterisk, followed by zero or more sequences of {whitespace, one-or-more
> digits}"
> /r$
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 09:08:20 UTC