On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:07:37 +0430, Michiel Korthuis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think \w = [_A-Za-z0-9]
so instread of
^[_A-Za-z0-9-]+(\\.[_A-Za-z0-9-]+)[EMAIL
PROTECTED](\\.[A-Za-z0-9-]+)*((\\.[A-Za-z]{2,}){1}$)
can tell
^\w+(\.\w+)[EMAIL PROTECTED]((\.\w+\.)+|\.)[a-z]{2,3}$
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 06:47 +0200, jan_bar wrote:
just in the case, do you take IDN (International Domain Names) into
consideration? Allowed characters for .de domain are listed here:
http://www.denic.de/en/domains/idns/liste.html.
It's not me who have created the RFC 822 compliant regex. But
Instead of using some super long regex why not code the logic by hand
(the old fashion way without regex). I find that often the resulting
code is easier to read and in this case it might actually turn out to be
shorter. Maybe :)
Gili
Frank Bille Jensen wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at
I don't think that code will be better readable. But I'm looking
forward to what you think it should look like :)
Eelco
On 6/21/06, cowwoc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of using some super long regex why not code the logic by hand
(the old fashion way without regex). I find that
None of these regexp are perfect, by the way. Email addresses are
not allowed to begin with hyphens and underscores =).
Michael Day
On Jun 22, 2006, at 1:40 AM, ali wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:07:37 +0430, Michiel Korthuis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think \w = [_A-Za-z0-9]
so
patch merged-IgorOn 6/21/06, Frank Bille Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 06:47 +0200, jan_bar wrote: just in the case, do you take IDN (International Domain Names) into consideration? Allowed characters for .de domain are listed here:
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 11:25 -0400, Michael Day wrote:
None of these regexp are perfect, by the way. Email addresses are
not allowed to begin with hyphens and underscores =).
According to whom ;-)
At least in the RFC email addresses may start with _ and -.
Regards
Frank Bille
Avaleo
Hrm, you're right, but the short regexps mentioned so far are still
not correct.
According to RFC3696 (Application Techniques for Checking and
Transformation of Names), the following are all valid email
addresses. I think I'll go shoot myself now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
customer/[EMAIL
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 08:42 -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
i wonder how big the created state machine is for this beast :)
It's quite big. I just tried to profile it and compare it to the regex,
which Michael Korthuis provided. If I can calculate correctly it is over
100 times larger than Michaels
heh, my vote is for michael's :) i merged it into 1.2 and 2.0 branches.what do you guys think? the big pattern is quiete a bit bigger and the way it works right now is every instance of email addr validator will create its own copy - maybe if we refactor that to keep the pattern as a singleton it
If people want the monster validator, they can write their own email address validator.On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:heh, my vote is for michael's :) i merged it into
1.2 and 2.0 branches.what do you guys think? the big pattern is quiete a bit bigger and the way it works
I only glanced quickly at the larger expression, but it seems to
allow for quite a bit that you would NOT want. I think it's more
geared toward mail servers. For example, I think it will evaluate
the following as a valid email address (possibly with random tabs and
spaces throughout):
How about having a RfcCompliantEmailAddressPatternValidator living nextto the normal EmailAddressPatternValidator? Then developers would only
pick the RFC compliant version if they actually needed it. Just athought.if you attach one to sf.net tracker or an email i will happily put it into
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:23 -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
if you attach one to sf.net tracker or an email i will happily put it
into extensions.
Yeah, why not :) I'll brew something together when I have a spare
moment.
- fb
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 21:27 +0200, Frank Bille Jensen wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:23 -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
if you attach one to sf.net tracker or an email i will happily put it
into extensions.
Yeah, why not :) I'll brew something together when I have a spare
moment.
And
Hi,
just in the case, do you take IDN (International Domain Names) into
consideration? Allowed characters for .de domain are listed here:
http://www.denic.de/en/domains/idns/liste.html.
http://www.mädchen.de (doesn't work but is registered)
Jan
All the advantages of Linux Managed
Thats right.. In our company we use the (crazy) regex pattern taken from
http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html
String emailPattern = (?:(?:\\r\\n)?[ \\t])*(?:(?:(?:[^()@,;:\\\.\\[\\]
\\000-\\031]+(?:(?:(?:\\r\\n)?[ \\t]
+
I am currently working on my graduation(project) @ Topicus with another student (Ronald Hemmink). We are new to Wicket and before we saw the wicket-build-in validator we came up with our own _expression_:^[_A-Za-z0-9-]+(\\.[_A-Za-z0-9-]+)[EMAIL PROTECTED](\\.[A-Za-z0-9-]+)*((\\.[A-Za-z]{2,}){1}$)
Yeah I know. The regex is really frightening to most people (my self
included), but AFAIK it should actually be the only one which truly
validates the full RFC; for what it's worth.
Regards
Frank Bille
Avaleo
On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 10:37 +0200, Michiel Korthuis wrote:
I am currently working on
i wonder how big the created state machine is for this beast :)-IgorOn 6/20/06, Frank Bille Jensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Thats right.. In our company we use the (crazy) regex pattern taken from
http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.htmlString emailPattern = (?:(?:\\r\\n)?[
20 matches
Mail list logo
