Restore "regex" to the list of formats. #398
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Addresses json-schema-org#392. It's come up several times that removing this format did not make sense and was quite possibly an accident. The "regex" format was actually still in use in the meta-schema for "pattern". I've added it to "patternProperties" as well using "propertyNames". Regular expressions are a fundamental programming tool, and play a part in JSON Schema's specification. It seems incorrect to not offer semantic documentation / optional validation of them.
Julian
reviewed
Sep 8, 2017
| </t> | ||
| <t> | ||
| A regular expression, which SHOULD be valid according to the | ||
| <xref target="ecma262">ECMA 262</xref> regular expression dialect. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't recall off hand, but I suspect strongly that the original spec made the same mention here that implementations may not be using ECMA regexes (and that this format might actually mean "some regex dialect, so restrict yourself to the common subsets).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @Julian, I'd forgotten about that section. I've updated it and made the regex definition reference it.
Interoperability considerations for regular expressions have their own section. This change updates that section to make a note of the "regex" value for "format" as well as the keywords that use regular expressions. It also makes reference to that section within the "regex" format definition to establish minimum support.
agebhar1
reviewed
Sep 8, 2017
jsonschema-validation.xml
Outdated
| <t> | ||
| Implementations that validate formats MUST accept at least the subset of | ||
| ECMA 262 defined in the <xref target="regexInterop">Regular Expressions</xref> | ||
| section of this specification, and SHOULD accept all validECMA 262 expressions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@handrews there's a missing space between valid and ECMA
|
@Julian are you willing to sign off on this after the update I made from your previous comment? |
|
Anyone want to sign off on this? @epoberezkin? @awwright? @Relequestual? @dlax? |
|
Lgtm! |
awwright
approved these changes
Sep 23, 2017
gregsdennis
added
clarification
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Addresses #392. It's come up several times that removing
this format did not make sense and was quite possibly an accident.
The "regex" format was actually still in use in the meta-schema
for "pattern". I've added it to "patternProperties" as well
using "propertyNames".
Regular expressions are a fundamental programming tool, and
play a part in JSON Schema's specification. It seems incorrect
to not offer semantic documentation / optional validation of them.