Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote on 09/27/2010 05:07:47 PM: > > On 09/27/2010 12:40 PM, Stefan Berger wrote: > > Extend the nwfilter.rng schema to accept comment attributes for all protocol > > types. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stef...@us.ibm.com> > > > > > > + <define name="comment-attribute"> > > + <interleave> > > + <optional> > > + <attribute name="comment"> > > + <ref name="comment-type"/> > > + </attribute> > > + </optional> > > + </interleave> > > + </define> > > Maybe I'm not understanding rng, but what is being interleaved here? Do
> things still validate if "comment-attribute" does not contain an > <interleave>? It's not necessary from what I can see, so I removed it. > > > + > > + <define name='comment-type'> > > + <data type="string"> > > + <param name="pattern">[a-za-z0-9`~...@#$%\-_+=|\\:";,./ \ > (\)\[\]\{\}"&<>']*</param> > > Since we are enforcing a maximum comment length of 256, would it make > sense to use {0,256} rather than * (or is it \{0,256\} for this flavor > of regular expression)? This explicitly leaves out tabs; I guess that's Correct. > okay. It also leaves out 8-bit bytes - could that be a problem for i18n > where people want comments with native-language accented characters? > That is, are we being too strict here? Maybe a better pattern would be > to reject specific non-printing ASCII bytes we want to avoid, assuing > you can use escape sequences like [^\001]? Looking at http://www.asciitable.com/ I should probably include 0x20-0x7E and 128-175, 224-238 - maybe even more? So the regex then becomes [ -~€-¯à-î]{0,256} Stefan
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list