|
[XMLSCHEMA-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: UPA example
From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:18:54 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c8d6c6$0637d490$ea00a8c0@Codalogic> To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, "'Boris Kolpackov'" <boris@codesynthesis.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org> - Original Message From: "Pete Cordell" > Personally I think that, subject to occurrence constraints, the particle > that is currently gobbling up input, should have priority (i.e. they're > greedy). That ... has similarities to how regular expressions behave. Apologies for answering my only e-mail, but just to check that I wasn't mistaken about the behaviour of regular expressions, I put together the following Perl program: #!/usr/bin/perl $instance = 'AAA'; $instance =~ /(?:A(.+))+/; print "instance: $instance\n"; print "captured: $1\n"; This gave the output: instance: AAA captured: AA which seems quite sensible to me and I think XSD1.1 should emulate it. (In case it is not obvious, my A in the regular expression corresponds to an <xs:element ref='apple'/> and the . the xs:any wildcard. Just in case you're out of practice on your PCREs, the (?:...) construct provides grouping without any capturing. One day I won't have to look that up!) Regards, Pete Cordell Codalogic For XML C++ data binding visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 13:19:40 GMT |
Subscribe in XML format
|






