LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  September 2011

DATETIME September 2011

Subject:

Re: Qualifier strings

From:

Saašha Metsärantala <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:26:04 +0200

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (40 lines)

Hello!

> any character other than whitespace
How is "whitespace" defined in this context? Unicode contains tens of 
"cadidate whitespace" characters, that is characters that may very well be 
considered "whitespace characters". In Unicode 6.0, there are 18 different 
characters defined as "Space Separator", for example. Furthermore, using 
characters such as "Paragraph Separator", "Line Feed", "Tab", "Form Feed", 
"Carriage Return", "NULL" or "Line Separator" (all these are NOT 
considered "Space Separators" by Unicode) may probably be problematic in 
many cases. I would not recommend either to allow field separator, record 
separator and many other control characters within qualifying strings.

> there is no need to worry about characters
> in the qualifying string conflicting with
> specially defined characters in the main
> part of the dateTime string.
That is true! But what about conflicts with:

(1) schemes to represent qualifying strings in future versions of EDTF?

(2) characters (not) allowed within the file formats where EDTF is stored?

Of course, it is (nearly) always possible to escape characters to be able 
to include them in XML attributes or in JSON, for example, but this is not 
always trivial.

Forward compatibility is also something I consider important.

I consider that limiting the definition of "string" with a regex allowing 
only safe characters would probably avoid problems.

The regex I suggested is very trivial but quite efficient to achieve these goals:

/^[\p{L}\p{Co}][\p{Nd}_\p{L}\p{Co}]*$/

Regards!

SaaĊĦha,

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager