Cristi Toth said the following On 4/18/2008 2:58 PM PT:
I like this too
does the list of space separated numbers comply to that CSS future
spec we were talking about?
I don't think it does.
-- Blake Sullivan
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hmm, that's an interresting format.
Glauco P. Gomes wrote:
@agent ie (versions: 4 5. 6)
where 4 = 4
and 5. = 5, 5.5, 5.6, 5.6.2 ...
and 5.5 = 5.5
and 5.5. = 5.5, 5.5.3 ...
Glauco P. Gomes
Scott O'Bryan escreveu:
@agent id (version: 8-SNAPSHOT).. :)
Andrew Robinson wrote:
Could we leverage maven version parsing algorithms?
Maven seems to be
able to parse a lot of crap :)
-Andrew
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Matt Cooper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
I agree, full agent "version" matching is
troublesome. With this approach:
@agent ie and (min-major-version: 6) and
(min-minor-version: 1) and
(max-major-version: 6) {
/* styles for IE agent version 6.1 through 6.x
(inclusive) */
}
We could go up to as many decimal tokens as we
wish, e.g.
*-major-version, *-minor-version,
*-maintenance-version,
*-build-version for
"major.minor.maintenance.build" tokens.
----
The question I would have then is what should we
do with non-numeric
values like you pointed out; do we really care
about skinning for
alphabetical versions?
My proposal would be to take the raw version
String and split it into
up into tokens based on the dot character. We
should decide how many
tokens we want to support and then we should
ignore any further tokens
in the String.
For each token, we turn it into an integer. If
the token contains
something other than decimal characters, keep
only up to the first
non-decimal character. Here are some examples:
a.) "0b5" would become "0"
b.) "b5" would become "" which we'd treat as "0"
Regards,
Matt
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Andrew Robinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Perhaps matching the full agent string is a bad
idea. I'd hate to have
> to parse many variations of things like:
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0;
en-US; rv:1.9b5)
> Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5
>
> -Andrew
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Andrew Robinson
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > The problem already brought up is that minor
version may not be
> > enough. In a 3 part version (ie 2.0.10) the
minor of 0 isn't helpful
> > if you want to do something based on the 10
value
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Matt
Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The regex would be powerful though I'm
afraid that it would not as
> > > obvious or easy to use for non-technical
designers/skinners.
> > >
> > > I think something like this would be
clearer:
> > >
> > > @agent ie and (min-major-version: 6) and
(min-minor-version: 1) and
> > > (max-major-version: 6) {
> > > /* styles for IE agent version 6.1
through 6.x (inclusive) */
> > > }
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Andrew
Robinson
> > >
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > > > Well that is difficult isn't it?
Perhaps what I suggested a long time
> > > > back in my bug is best and allow regexp:
> > > >
> > > > @agent blah and (matches-version:
/someRegExp/)
> > > >
> > > > example to match 6.x through 7.x:
> > > > @agent ie and (matches-version:
/[67](\.\d)*/)
> > > >
> > > > yeah it is harder to write, but then
we can write it once and it
> > > > handles pretty much all use cases.
> > > >
> > > > The other twist is to give the code
entire user agent string:
> > > >
> > > > @agent matches(/MSIE\s+[67]/)
> > > >
> > > > This really gives the user all the
control they need and it is pretty
> > > > easy to parse without having to code
many syntax improvements over
> > > > time as new requirements come up.
> > > >
> > > > -Andrew
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM,
Andy Schwartz
> > > >
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:21 PM,
Andrew Robinson
> > > > >
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'll be happy either way, but I
think I now bend to the below
> > > > > > explanation of 5 == 5.0 from
Jeanne's reasoning
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, I actually agree with
Jeanne's first opinion. :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > That is, I think of "5" as "5.*".
"5.0" as "5.0.*", etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the use of floating
points to represent versions... I was
> > > > > wondering whether we should avoid
this since it would prevents us from
> > > > > supporting
"major.minor.reallyminor" version strings. I
don't know
> > > > > that we will ever need to go
further than major.minor, though the
> > > > > Gecko versions use the third
digit, so perhaps we should pick a
> > > > > solution that doesn't preclude us
from supporting this?
> > > > >
> > > > > (BTW, sorry all about my little
digression earlier on the thread...)
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Cristi Toth
-------------
Codebeat
www.codebeat.ro <http://www.codebeat.ro>
