- From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:09:46 -0000
- To: "'Bryan Rasmussen'" <brs@itst.dk>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Saxon also reports name@address.com as invalid. The reason is that in XML Schema, regular expressions are implicitly anchored, and the characters "^" and "$" therefore represent themselves. It would probably have been a better design choice if these characters had been disallowed... Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org > [mailto:xmlschema-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Rasmussen > Sent: 11 March 2005 13:14 > To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org > Subject: regular expressions in xml schema > > > Hi, I have the following regular expression for an email address, > ^(([A-Za-z0-9]+_+)|([A-Za-z0-9]+\-+)|([A-Za-z0-9]+\.+)|([A-Z > a-z0-9]+\++))*[A-Za-z0-9]+@((\w+\-+)|(\w+\.))*\w{1,63}\.[a-z > A-Z]{2,6}$ > > from Gavin Sharp at regexlib > http://www.regexlib.com/REDetails.aspx?regexp_id=295 > > as in > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <xsd:schema targetNamespace="http://rep.oio.dk/email" > xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" version="1.0" > xmlns:e="http://rep.oio.dk/email" > elementFormDefault="qualified"> > > > > > > > <xsd:element name="email" type="e:emailType" /> > > <xsd:simpleType name="emailType"> > <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string"> > <xsd:pattern > value="^(([A-Za-z0-9]+_+)|([A-Za-z0-9]+\-+)|([A-Za-z0-9]+\.+)|([A-Z > a-z0-9]+\++))*[A-Za-z0-9]+@((\w+\-+)|(\w+\.))*\w{1,63}\.[a-z > A-Z]{2,6}$"/> > </xsd:restriction> > </xsd:simpleType> > </xsd:schema> > > this works fine when ran in XSV, that is it allows email addresses I > expected, and disallows non-email strings, however in msxml's > schemaCache > and in XMLSPY professional #3 2004 it won't even accept > hello@world.com, now > I can't say I have a clear understanding on constraints of > regex usage in > xmlschema so what i would like to know is are schemaCache and XMLSPY > correct? That this regex in xml schema should consider > name@address.com type > addresses as incorrect? > If so what is wrong with it? > > >
Received on Friday, 11 March 2005 15:09:59 UTC