• From: Dan Shelton <dan.f.shelton@g...>
• To: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 23:27:23 +0200

On 2 July 2012 23:11, David Carlisle <davidc@n...> wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 22:06, Mike Sokolov wrote:
>>
>> Can anybody explain to me why the comment subexpression wouldn't just
>> swallow an entire document like this:
>
>
> you are right, it would (assuming the regexp dialect being used has the
> usual longest match semantic).

The regex syntax used is the same as in egrep(1). ~(E) in ksh93
selects egrep mode, ~(G) grep mode, ~(F) fgrep/plain strings, ~(P)
pcre and so on.

>
> ([^><]+)            # xml text
>
> isn't right either as > is allowed in xml text.

Do you have an example xml fragment for that? I can't imagine that
<atag>></atag> can be valid. libxml2 at least chokes on that.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• References:
  • newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Dan Shelton <dan.f.shelton@g...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Dan Shelton <dan.f.shelton@g...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Mike Sokolov <sokolov@i...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>