Skip to content

Clarified supported Ecma edition for regex #1725

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 12, 2020
Merged

Clarified supported Ecma edition for regex #1725

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
dcc37e1
Clarified supported Ecma edition for regex
Oct 24, 2018
55ce94c
Merge branch 'v3.0.3-dev' into v3.0.3-dev
MikeRalphson Feb 7, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion versions/3.0.3.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2284,7 +2284,7 @@ The following properties are taken directly from the JSON Schema definition and
- exclusiveMinimum
- maxLength
- minLength
- pattern (This string SHOULD be a valid regular expression, according to the [ECMA 262 regular expression](https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-7.8.5) dialect)
- pattern (This string SHOULD be a valid regular expression, according to the [Ecma-262 Edition 5.1 regular expression](https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-7.8.5) dialect)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ecma- should be ECMA-, no?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm, not sure... https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-7.8.5 says:

This is the HTML rendering of Ecma-262 Edition 5.1, The ECMAScript Language Specification.

It looks like ECMA is uppercase mostly when used in 'ECMAScript'.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wow, what a mess of mixed caps! :)

You're right though, based on their usage in that doc, we can basically do what we want. My own personal sensibilities would argue for capitalization, and the header on that page does use capitalization:
image

... but then does something else shortly thereafter. My point is definitely a nit, and this shouldn't hold up the acceptance, though if you don't mind using ECMA instead, please do, thx.

- maxItems
- minItems
- uniqueItems
Expand Down