Eric Blake <eblake@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 <stefanb@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