W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > March 2007

Re: Permit (greedy) conflicting wildcards

From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:15:52 -0000
Message-ID: <009c01c767c4$ed6fb340$5900a8c0@Codalogic>
To: <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>

Previously sent using wrong account!!!

Original Message From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm...>
>
> On 15 Mar 2007, at 08:22 , Pete Cordell wrote:
> ...
> Requiring a greedy match would be one way to resolve
> particle competition, agreed, although surely there
> will be situations in which some schema authors want
> a non-greedy match.

Do you have any use-cases where non-greedy matches would be helpful?

My blissfully simplistic view of wildcards is that they permit two main
use-cases: skipping over forward compatible material that I can ignore, and
capturing input from an external, specific vocabulary such as XHTML.

In the first case I don't think it matters which wildcard sucks up the
input.  It's just getting it out the way!

In the second case, the wildcard is much more specific, and so the scope for
conflicts is much reduced.

> The difficulty is that finite state
> automata and regular expressions with greedy
> matching seem not to behave the same way FSAs and
> regexes without greedy matching behave.

I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to do the FSA thing!!!  Possibly for your
entertainment, I'll capture how I would do it in another thread!

Thanks for the comments,

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
=============================================
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 12:16:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:15:41 UTC