And you know what, I glossed over that sentence before replying. :O
On 2/24/13 8:06 PM, Adam Cameron wrote: > Absolutely mate. I did make sure to point that out: > >> That said, this >> is the fault of the original regex, not your fix for it. > (Yes, I did see the smiley too though ;-) > > > On 25 February 2013 15:00, .jonah <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I take issue! ;) >> >> Kevin simply asked to his regex working with an apostrophie. My answer >> did that. He didn't ask for the be-all-end-all of email validators. >> >> Now, as to the rest of your comment and blog post, I'm in agreement. >> It's rarely done correctly. (Not accounting for plus addressing often >> annoys me.) >> >> However, writing an RFC compliant parser is quite possible and someone >> should probably do it. However, trying to build something that would >> work 100% out in the wild would probably be futile. >> >> >> >> On 2/24/13 11:12 AM, Adam Cameron wrote: >>>> This seems to work, no? >>> No. It doesn't allow for quite a number of completely legit characters, >>> notably the + sign (which is very common), amongst others. That said, >> this >>> is the fault of the original regex, not your fix for it. >>> >>> My feedback on this got too long for a response here, so I wrote it up on >>> my blog: >>> >> http://adamcameroncoldfusion.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/email-address-validation-1-in-series.html >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:354674 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
