Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2024-03-26 19:30:
No. To take several years and come up with a syntax which does not
cover all valid addresses is a sign of incompetence that this WG doesn't
deserve, IMHO. What do others think?
Let's rather switch to /[0-9a-fA-F.:]+/. Terse and correct.
I'm in
On Tue 26/Mar/2024 16:18:31 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
::00::12.34.56.78
0:0:0:0:0:0::012.034.056.078
The latter yields failure running the example program in the inet_pton(3) man
page. See e.g.
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/inet_pton.3.html#EXAMPLES
My bad.
::00::12.34.56.78
0:0:0:0:0:0::012.034.056.078
The latter yields failure running the example program in the inet_pton(3) man
page. See e.g.
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/inet_pton.3.html#EXAMPLES
That's yet another reason not to change the XML spec. Please stop.
On Mon 25/Mar/2024 18:54:14 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
How about:
"(:::)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])"/>
Testing yielded a correct fix:
