News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on In search of the perfect URL validation regex. Parent comment

Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by saraid216 on Sunday June 22, 2014 @08:18PM (#7929636)
That doesn't work for validation.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by lazyloop on Sunday June 22, 2014 @09:32PM (#7929777)
Of course it does, if that regular expression matches we have a valid URI. It's silly what gets downvoted on HN these days.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Sunday June 22, 2014 @10:13PM (#7929871)
No, it doesn't. This regular expression matches strings that are not URIs, and that should be quite obvious if you compare the grammar in that same RFC to the regex.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by lazyloop on Monday June 23, 2014 @12:49AM (#7930301)
Yes, it does. And it is quite obvious if you compare the grammar to the regular expression.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Monday June 23, 2014 @01:07AM (#7930349)
Please show how to produce the following string (which is matched by that regex) from the grammar (without the quotes):

"%x"

(edit: actually, feel free to do it with the quotes included if you like, that would still be matched by that regex)

[ Parent | on HN ]