On Jun 14, 2019, at 12:08, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Or perhaps we could define a regex language that worked with normal > implementations without requiring any conversion.
Unlikely, as it is easy to write an regex that inadvertently triggers some “feature" in a specific flavor. So you would need to list all the current and future idiosyncrasies of all flavors and outlaw them. Worse, what you have outlawed may be *the* valid way to represent something in some other dialect, so the specifier needs to jump through hoops to work around that or simply cannot write down the regex needed. Also, all those features that are subtly different between flavors (starting with ., \s, …) can’t be used. The approach probably works for [A-Fa-f0-9]+, but becomes icky for anything more complicated quickly. (And, actually, XSD regexes are very close to what you would come up with, anyway, except for “features” like character class subtraction or block escapes.) Oh, and defining “normal implementations” is left as an exercise to the reader :-) What we could do (and that would be quite useful, I think) is *document* the subset of XSD regexes that actually has the same meaning in PCRE2, Java8, JavaScript, .NET and a few more real-world regex languages after adding the necessary anchors in those languages. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
