[Rets-dev] Email validation regular expression

Wed Apr 25 22:49:21 CDT 2007

I'm just saying it should be done 'after' we get agreement on the schema.
>From what I have heard, it is currently very impractical to tighten up
things to the data type level, let alone the format level.  There are many
issues with trying to force format masks for a phone number that were
brought up at the meeting.  If we put this kind of thing into the schema,
the schema will very likely not be able to be validated.  I just think that
going to the format mask level is way too far to attempt.  Let's do the data
types and fields and leave it at that for the first round.

Regards,
Sergio Del Rio
Templates 4 Business Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stusiak [mailto:pstusiak at falcontechnologies.com] 
Sent: April 25, 2007 5:52 PM
To: Sergio Del Rio
Cc: 'Michael Wurzer'; rets-dev at rets.org
Subject: Re: [Rets-dev] Email validation regular expression

So we should ignore the unequivocal statement by the MLS staff in 
attendance at the last RETS Workgroup meeting in Austin to attempt to 
come up with type information and strengthen the data quality?

Shouldn't we be trying to meet their needs?

By my count, those MLS staff in attendance represented at least 250,000 
agents. While I know there was some concern voiced that the goal may be 
very difficult, we should at least try.

None of them said "don't do it".

So if they are willing, why shouldn't we try NOW?

I would point to the un-sourced (if you know where it is from I'd like 
to know - that would be a book.) quotation attributed to Lucius Seneca:
"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is 
because we do not dare that they are difficult."

Maybe there is less of a problem than we perceive. Maybe I'll make this 
my sig...

Paul

Sergio Del Rio wrote:
>
> I'll have to third that motion, it is ambitious enough to get the 
> field values, let's save field content for 3.0...
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
> Sergio Del Rio
>
> Templates 4 Business Inc.
>
>  
>
> *From:* rets-dev-bounces at rets.org [mailto:rets-dev-bounces at rets.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Michael Wurzer
> *Sent:* April 25, 2007 3:03 PM
> *Cc:* rets-dev at rets.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Rets-dev] Email validation regular expression
>
>  
>
> Agreed.
>
> Michael Wurzer, FBS
>
> Steve Clarke wrote:
>
>         the balance between backward looking compatibility and forward
>
>               
>
> looking uses.
>  
> In my opinion we should be attempting to standardize the payloads to the
> field level and not down to the data values.  If existing databases
> contain "111-1234 (after 8:00 PM call 222-2345)" in a phone number
> field, then does that mean that this phone number field can no longer be
> mapped to the standardized phone field in the payload?  If a FloorType
> field can contain a meaningful value that is not contained in the
> enumerated list, does that mean that this can no longer be a floortype
> field?  To me, this kinda defeats the objective of the standard
> payloads.
>  
> I think it's going to be hard enough to get practical use from the
> standard payloads in RETS 2.0.  People are already asking how to use the
> equivalent of COMPACT format in 2.0.  I don't think we should make it
> even more difficult to adopt by enforcing rigid data value validation.
> Or at least I think that the data validation should come after the
> schema standardization has been accomplished and has been approved by a
> critical mass of MLSs.
>  
> smc
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rets-dev-bounces at rets.org <mailto:rets-dev-bounces at rets.org>
[mailto:rets-dev-bounces at rets.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Stusiak
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:34 PM
> To: Keith T. Garner
> Cc: rets-dev at rets.org <mailto:rets-dev at rets.org>
> Subject: Re: [Rets-dev] Email validation regular expression
>  
> While JWZ has many witty things to say, I think that there is some 
> question of Jaime as the originator of the quote (saw it earlier wrt to 
> sed/awk). See
>  
> http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-15/247
>  
> It is quite a good blog entry from a very experienced person using 
> regular expressions where he discusses the quote. You could also check 
> out the previous entry http://regex.info/blog/2006-09-14/246. He (JF) 
> wrote the MRE (no, not meals ready to eat - Mastering Regular 
> Expressions) O'Reilly book - something to while away the hours when 
> traveling to the next RETS meeting and an excellent example of technical
>  
> writing. :-) It's hard to believe that it has been ten years since he 
> published the first edition. Looks like I'll need to get the updated 
> version...
>  
> Also note that JWZ is an XEmacs/Lisp person and may have some religious 
> issues with regular expressions. Certainly some of the discussions 
> around Emacs, Lisp, Ruby and other languages, both in the past and 
> currently, should leave no one questioning how real wars start.
>  
> The number of places where regular expressions can be used in RETS is 
> very small - properly. It is one of the "horses for courses" - pick the 
> appropriate tool for the task. We have more tools than a hammer, so we 
> don't need to treat everything as a nail. However, where there is a nail
>  
> that needs to be pounded into a board, a hammer is much more useful than
>  
> pounding the nail with a screwdriver or a saw (tried it, wasn't
> pretty...)
>  
> Of course, the "fully compliant" regular expression says volumes about 
> the standard (RFC 2822) and less about regular expressions. The RFC 
> attempts to make it possible to describe many very, very obsolete email 
> addressing schemes. It is something that should weigh heavily on us as 
> we develop standards, the balance between backward looking compatibility
>  
> and forward looking uses.
>  
> Paul
>  
> Keith T. Garner wrote:
>   
>
>     As much as I find regular expressions useful, when I see something
>
>         
>
> like the
>   
>
>     fully compliant regular expression, I have to quote JWZ.
>
>      
>
>     "Some people, when confronted with a problem, think `I know, I'll use
>
>     regular expressions.' Now they have two problems." -- Jamie Zawinski
>
>      
>
>     Keith
>
>      
>
>     Matt Lavallee wrote:
>
>       
>
>         
>
>         Mostly for Paul's edification, this will pick up all RFC-compliant
>
>               
>
> email
>   
>
>         addresses:
>
>             
>
>               
>
> [delete long regex]
>   
>
>         -Matt
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         pmpt_logo
>
>          
>
>         PMPTechnology.com <http://www.pmptechnology.com/>
>
>          
>
>            
>
>          
>
>         *Matt Lavallee*
>
>         /Manager of Web Services/
>
>          
>
>         /phone:/ 630-598-2301
>
>         /fax:/ 630-982-6641
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>               
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         Rets-dev mailing list
>
>         Rets-dev at rets.org <mailto:Rets-dev at rets.org>
>
>         http://lists.rets.org/mailman/listinfo/rets-dev
>
>             
>
>               
>
>      
>
>       
>
>         
>
>  
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rets-dev mailing list
> Rets-dev at rets.org
> http://lists.rets.org/mailman/listinfo/rets-dev
>   

-- 
Paul Stusiak
Falcon Technologies Corp.