I'm a huge advocate of this, of course. Attribute grammars, too.
Hilarie
"Lee Rafalow" <rafalow(_at_)raleigh(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> 03/28/01 11:04AM
FYI and consideration...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry S. Bartz"
<lbartz(_at_)parnelli(_dot_)indy(_dot_)cr(_dot_)irs(_dot_)gov>
To: "Lee Rafalow" <rafalow(_at_)raleigh(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>; "IETF Policy WG
LIST"
<policy(_at_)raleigh(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: PCIMe MATCHing and more
Lee Rafalow wrote:
For applications of the policy framework to any text evaluating policies
(e.g., web), regular expressions will be very useful.
See, for example,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-beck-opes-irml-00.txt
I agree, Lee.
That draft cites POSIX (ISO/IEC DIS 9945-2:1992 and IEEE Std
1003.2-1992)
as the spec for regular expressions.
In my message, I cited ECMA262 (aka ISO-16262, aka ECMAscript, aka
JavaScript) as the spec for regular expressions.
The ISO-16262 regular expression syntax is directly supported in web
browser software and in readily available implementations of server-side
ECMAscript. It can be parsed and interpreted practically anywhere.
In addition, the ISO-16262 regular expression syntax is based upon
Perl 5 regular expression syntax, which in turn has its roots in
POSIX regExp, which in turn grew from C and Unix based regExp. The Perl
environemt has subsequently added functionality to regExp, so that
Perl-5/ECMA262/ISO-16262 regExp is a superset of POSIX regExp.
While POSIX regExp is certainly a stable standard, I prefer the
Perl-5/ECMA262/ISO-16262 superset, both for its enhanced capabilities
and for its widespread implementation support.