Parsing HTML with regex
Parsing HTML with regex
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/12950329
20 comments
-
-
-
Technically, regex can’t pull out every link in an HTML document without potentially pulling fake links.
Take this example (using curly braces instead of angle brackets, because html is valid markdown):
{template id="link-template"} {a href="javascript:void(0);"}link{/a} {/template}That’s perfectly valid HTML, but you wouldn’t want to pull that link out, and POSIX regex can’t really avoid it. At least not with just a single regex. Imagine a link nested within like 3 template tags.
-
Anyone else read that in the Monty Python holy hand grenade style?
-
Xhtml is right out!
-
I thought it was a font at first but it looks like actual calligraphy.
-
It's a personal variant of Foundational script, with uncial and a modernized textura when it starts to derail into zalgo-ness, written with a Lamy Joy 1.9mm nib.
-
-
-
Zalgo is Tony the Pony.
-
he comes
he comes
he comes
h̵̝̖͂e̵͖͈͐ ̷̛̪̗̜̥̓̉́c̸̜͎̬̦̦̀̀̀͛̚o̴̳͙͂m̷̲̓͋͆́̃ȇ̷̯̞͚̹͗̉͝ͅs̵̹͔̜͕̖̅͗̂͌̀
-
-
Not knowing it was impossible, he got there and did it!
-
I am so DOM-ed up that I have to wear a ball-gag
-
I tried using regex to parse xmls files once. Then i found this post and realized xml was even worse than html
-
XHTML be like "Lemme intorduce myself"
-
can anyone recommend a tool to parse xml?
-
Microsoft transaction SQL version 1 newer than what we have.
We had to write our own xml parser. And yes it sucks.
-
XSLT =P
-
-
-
The Chomsky hierarchy is a fucking myth. HTML isn't a formal language but its context free? GTFO, next you'll be telling me the earth isn't flat.
20 comments
Actually the original is from StackOverflow
I think it's older than that. Well, parts of it are.
Though I adore the addition of the fade to chaos in the 2009 Stack Overflow post, I recall seeing the exact early text from that answer linked and re-pasted on older CS forums as early as 2000. It needed posted a lot, shortly after XHTML became popular.
Part of the contextual humor of the 2009 SO answer, is it takes the trend of the previous answers - getting longer and less coherent each time it needed posted - and extended it to it's logical conclusion.
I do think the Stack Overflow post is the definitive version.
I wish I could find the original, or something closer, because we could compare and measure our collective loss of sanity.