On 07/27/2007 03:53 PM Alexandru Stanoi wrote: > 1. Which regexp to use for email validation?
> a. > http://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/pear/HTML_QuickForm/QuickForm/Rule/Email.php?revision=1.4&view=markup > b. http://iamcal.com/publish/articles/php/parsing_email/ > c. http://code.iamcal.com/php/rfc822/full_regexp.txt > d. http://ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html > e. http://www.tienhuis.nl/files/email_verify_source.php > f. This one (please specify): _________________ > g. Write our own one a, since this is used by ext/filter, too. Makes us consistent with PHP behaviour. > 2. Do we need to support conversion to Puny code > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puny_code)? > a. NO WAY! > b. No > c. Not now > d. Yes > e. YES WAY! d > 3. If the answer to question 2 was one of c, d or e, then where to put > the unicodeToPunyCode convert function (and the reverse function)? > a. Mail > b. Url > c. Base > d. UserInput > e. a Tiein (please specify): _______________ > f. I can tell you where to put it! c, since this can be used in multiple components (a, b, d,...) > 4. If the answer to question 2 was one of c, d, or e, how should the > unicodeToPunyCode function be triggered? > a. Automatically everytime > b. Automatically if the email address contains characters outside of ASCII > c. Based on a function parameter, default false > d. Based on a class option, default false > e. Called manually by user > f. It should be hidden, with private and @ignore tags, and with an > obfuscated name, so that nobody will ever know it's there and nobody > will ever call it b > 5. How many functions which deal with email address validation should we > have? > a. A function which does everything (regexp, mx, punycode) in one step, > with no possibility of changing the behaviour > b. A function in which the parameters say if the function should do mx > and punycode, which are not done by default > c. A function in which the class options say if the function should do > mx and punycode, which are not done by default > d. 3 functions, one for each step (regexp, mx, punycode). These will be > called independently > e. 4 functions (the 3 functions from d and the function from b) > f. 4 functions (the 3 functions from d and the function from c) > g. 7 functions (regexp, mx, punycode, regexp+mx, regexp+punycode, > mx+punycode, regexp+mx+punycode) h. 2 functions: validateEmailAddress() for the regex check and verfifyEmailAddress() for the MX check, while the latter one should automatically call validateEmailAddress() before attempting an MX check. I don't actually think this kind of voting makes sense. You should provide 1 throughthought concept based on the comments you received and then ask for +1/0/-1 on this concept. The current vote just results in more discussion, as you can see. It's your job to consider all comments and try to combine them in the best possibly compromise. :) Regards, Toby -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Med vennlig hilsen / With kind regards Tobias Schlitt (GPG: 0xC462BC14) eZ Components Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | eZ Systems AS | ez.no -- Components mailing list Components@lists.ez.no http://lists.ez.no/mailman/listinfo/components
