Re: [Jsonpath] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bormann-jsonpath-iregexp-04.txt

[Stefan Gössner <[e-mail]>]

+1

Am 25.04.2022 um 19:46 schrieb Glyn Normington:
> I agree with your implementation cost argument.
>
> Also, without a full test suite of all cases of syntactically invalid 
> strings (is such a thing even theoretically feasible?), 
> implementations' syntax checking would probably vary, impacting 
> interoperation.
>
> So, yes, I could live with a MAY.
>
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022, 18:26 Tim Bray, <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     I can't disagree. All I can add is that a MUST is a pretty heavy
>     hammer. I think that for any of the well-known libraries, I could
>     construct and ship an I-Regexp translator in a very short time, in
>     some cases hours. Building a syntax checker would be a much more
>     demanding task, and writing the test suite for such a checker
>     would be very discouraging.
>
>     While I at least partially agree with you, here's a
>     counter-proposal: Put in a MAY (or SHOULD?)  and a paragraph
>     containing basically the text of your email 5 minutes ago,
>     encouraging implementors to do this.
>
>     On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:07 AM Glyn Normington
>     <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>         If non-conforming regexps are handled, I think (at least
>         perceived) interoperation could suffer. Suppose someone gets
>         used to using a particular I-Regexp implementation and fails
>         to notice they have stepped outside the official syntax. Then
>         at some point, they try another i-Regexp implementation and
>         either (a) their regexp syntax is rejected as invalid or (b)
>         the behaviour is different.
>
>