Part 2 schema regex for ST_ContentType

[John Haug]

Darn, comparing that line to the previous one in my document, it looks like I may have introduced a typo.  Fixed (hopefully) in the attached.  Thanks!

John

From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 7:24 AM
To: John Haug
Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: Part 2 schema regex for ST_ContentType

John,

After the meetings, I took a similar look at the regex, compared it to RFC 2616 (the regex is intended to match the RFC), compared RFCs 2616 and 7231 and documented everything in the attached.  (This includes a fix to the error Murata-san noted.)  The e-mail discussion is included below.


Actually,

X+/X+(\s*;\s*(X+=(X+|("(Y|(\\[\p{IsBasicLatin}])*)"))))*<file:///\\[\p%7bIsBasicLatin%7d%5d)*)"))))*>

should become

X+/X+(\s*;\s*(X+=(X+|("(Y|(\\[\p{IsBasicLatin}]))*"))))*<file:///\\[\p%7bIsBasicLatin%7d%5d))*"))))*>

Regards,
Makoto

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150407/81186f7c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: content type regex v2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 27191 bytes
Desc: content type regex v2.docx
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20150407/81186f7c/attachment-0001.docx>