- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:09:23 +0100
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:48:01 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > I agree with Ian that an ideal solution would be to allow something > like the (?i...) syntax described in the bug. This is better both > because it allows all features to be expressed as a single string, and > because it allows using both case sensitive and case insensitive > matching in the same expression. > > However given that it doesn't seem like this is about to happen for > ECMAScript, I think we'll have to live with the reality of that and > add a separate attribute. What makes you say that it doesn't seem like it's about to happen? Has anyone proposed adding ?i to regexps in TC39? >> In fairness, of the current three ECMAScript regexp flags, only two >> seem likely to have a useful effect on the pattern attribute, >> specifically the "m" and "i" flags, but not the "g" flag. > > Actually, since <input> for all relevant types can't contain newlines > (i think), the "m" flag doesn't seem useful here either. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 18:09:56 UTC