[libvirt] [PATCH v2 3/5] Extend nwfilter schema to accept comment attributes

[Stefan Berger]

Eric Blake <eblake at 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 at 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

[&#x20;-&#x7E;€-¯à-î]{0,256}

   Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20100928/a2180983/attachment-0001.htm>