- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:39:49 +0100
- To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Thank you, Jörg and Yves, this is now issue-67. I will put this on the agenda for Monday. One question below. Am 03.01.13 23:00, schrieb Jörg Schütz: > Hi Yves, > > Many thanks for your indepth explanation. Everything sounds quite > convincing. Well, I'll have a closer look on your sub-set proposal, > and come back on this issue again... > > Meanwhile, all the best, > > -- Jörg > > On Jan 03, 2013 at 18:09 (UTC+1), Yves Savourel wrote: >> Hi Jörg, >> >>> What would be this "small sub-set that most engines support"? >> >> See most of the old discussion here: >> https://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/actions/189 I *think* in the discussion around action-189, all the arguments you give below were discussed; Jirka and partially I gave counterarguments, e.g. a counterargument to your SRX example at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0302.html saying that each XML Schema 1.0 or 1.1 implementation correctly implements the regular expressions we refer to - so no danger for an "SRX situation" here. What is the "new evidence" in your argumentation below? I'm just trying to avoid repepition for whose who followed the previous discussion. Best, Felix >> >> I think the last proposed sub-set is described in the attachment on >> this email: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0269.html >> >> >> >> >>> I'm asking because with XSD RE we have a standardized specification >>> which IMHO we wouldn't have with a "small sub-set". >> >> When talking about regular expressions most developers will see Perl >> or ECMA as the de-facto standards rather than XSD RE. >> >> The idea is to define a sub-set that is common to most of the main >> regex 'standards' (including XSD RE). The syntax of that sub-set >> could be specified by using a pattern facet in the ITS schema >> (written using XSD RE :) >> >> What I'd like to avoid is to have ITS allowing the use of constructs >> specific to a given regex engine (XSD RE or any other). >> >> I know XSD RE is implemented in various programming language and >> Jirka already pointed out ways to use such implementations, but I >> still think it would make more sense to use a sub-set for which the >> implementer doesn't have to do anything special and (in most cases) >> simply use the regex engine of his/her programming language. >> >> I've seen the same kind of implementation issue with SRX where the >> 'standard' is the ICU RE. The outcome: as far as I know there is only >> one SRX engines that supports the ICU syntax properly, all the others >> simply use their programming language regex engine. In the Allowed >> Characters case we could avoid that because the aim of the regex can >> be achieved with a basic sub-set of regex constructs. Why make the >> implementation difficult when it can be simpler? >> >> cheers, >> -yves >> >
Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 06:40:13 UTC