I need to match all of these opening tags:
<p>
<a href="foo">
But not self-closing tags:
<br />
<hr class="foo" />
I came up with this and wanted to make
no, this is one of the worst answers on Stack Overflow
OP had a specific question to capture opening tags. The thing OP asked about can be done with regular expressions. It is true that arbitrarily nested languages like HTML cannot generally be parsed with regular expressions, but that is not what OP asked about.
This is StackOverflow after all. Your question is wrong. Your problem is wrong. You are wrong. I am right. Thread locked. Go read this other post that is totally unrelated to your problem I’ve decided isn’t the problem you’re facing because. I. Am. Right.
Magic may be an overstatement. I would be shocked if any of them fixed even 0.1% of the problems posted to Microsoft’s joke of a support forum where they were presented as solutions.
It can be done with simple regex of the kind proposed in various answers there iff the html is known to be limited to the subset of html where that sort of thing can easily be made to work. The question does not tell us whether or not that is the case, so everyone is free to make their own assumptions and argue as if they know what’s going on.
You can’t parse every html opening tag with regex, because a html opening tag doesn’t have a set structure. How would you match, with regex, this opening tag?
<mytag myattribute="<value of \"myattribute\">" >
I once applied to an internship for a company doing job offers aggregation. During the interview they explained to me that the core of what they did was parsing (partial) html with regex. When I asked why they wouldn’t develop a custom parser, they replied to me that they were working on it, but that the internship wouldn’t focus on that. I was not disappointed when it didn’t get the job.
There is a famous Erik Naggum rant about XML at, no wait, I better not link it but you can find it with a search engine if you want, which means you don’t get to complain to me about it since you are the one who went looking for it. Very NSFW and VERY politically incorrect. Naggum died in 2009 but anyone who published a thing like that today would be raked over the coals.
It’s still actually pretty sketchy, depending on exactly what you want to do. Strict regex still won’t be able to match correctly if you want to match what an HTML parser considers the opening tag, though fancier regex will. If you’re just looking for the tags in the HTML document as a flat document it’s doable, though. (Mostly.)
Except in 99% of cases the person is asking an xy problem, and if they ever explained the why, they would get a proper answer.
Often the reason no one does the hyper-specific thing, is that there are better non code solutions, it’s massively insecure, or is just stupid micromanaging.
You know, when I typically ask a question on SO, its because I want to learn how that thing works, or how to write it myself. I usually say as much, but the SO folks are too focused on the ends, they completely neglect the means. Chances are I’m already aware of that no-code solution, but that’s not what I’m asking for.
I think there’s an element of responsibility that some people feel when they respond. If you’re asking for a very niche solution that is likely to create other problems in the future, should anyone else look at your code or refactor it or rely on it, or should you forget how it works, perhaps people are going to be less inclined in helping you craft it.
If you still want to craft it, that’s okay, but you have to expect that some real percent of the answers are going to be those folk who know what the tried and true solution is, often because they’ve lived through the reality that you’re attempting to create and they’ve dealt with the aftermath of doing it special and different.
Which is fine when people do not reject the answers that are different from what they were expecting. Learning that the problem you have is a reason that noone does this, is a valid thing to learn.
It’s usually when I see people moving the goal posts on replies, or complaining that they didn’t answer the exact question that i see as frustrating. Or “I don’t want to do that” with no more info.
But if you are aware of other solutions, you should state that in the question and give your reasons. It’s a waste of time if you know someone might suggest what you have dismissed already.
The html question is a classic for this, they want to find non self closed tags. Why? Why can’t they use a parser? What are they doing with this info? All questions that would give you a good idea on how the problem can be solved. Playing with regex would be a valid answer to that, but is not stated. Unfortunately I find so’s format discourages extra interrogation.
The answer is not an attack on the person, but a frustration at the people before that ignored previous answers to use a parser.
They are trying to derail your question, which was already a generalized version of what your actual question was. And of course, you would need to explain everything you generalized out of your question (which would probably all get deleted by someone editing your question and removing all the irrelevant facts) by which point your question becomes so complicated nobody can answer it, even though they could have answered the generalized version.
My advice, just use chatgpt or mistral, 99% you will get a better answer than stackoverflow.
And you will get this actionnable answer IMMEDIATELY !
I would say it’s more like: “How can I do X?” “Here are some reasons you can’t do Y.”
The answers should have been “Here are some reasons doing X is hard, but here’s an attempt at it anyway and also some more robust alternatives to doing X.” That would have been an excellent answer. (If you go down far enough you do start to see things like this but they’re hindered by people still responding that you can’t do Y or downvoting because they don’t understand what’s happening.)
Using a regex on html is like eating wild mushrooms that you found in the woods. There are times where it’s appropriate and safe, other times where it’s completely insane and possibly deadly, and it takes considerable experience to know how to tell the difference.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
I’m not a professional code monkey although I’ve done a fair amount of coding, and every time I tried to do parsing myself, I later regretted it.
But telling people that they’re doing it wrong is rarely met with positivity. :-)
Calendar, remind me to ask StackOverflow tomorrow if I can
parse HTML with regexsget someone else to do my class homework for me?Sweet, my summoning spell worked!
https://www.zalgo.org/
T̸̛̟͚͋͛̈̊͜͝Ờ̶̤̫̦͙̜̫͇͕͈̘̭̈̑̓̀̈́̌͊͛̆͐̌̈́͝ͅN̸̯̫̺̄̿̎͗͗́͜Y̷̢̱͚̖̤̠̞͉̅́̋̉̿̇̎̋͆͝͝ ̸̧̡̨̧̡̛̖̤̜͔̲̯̞͉͈̻̎̈̄̓̊̄́̕͘͝͠ͅT̷͎̝͌̅̔̓̒H̷̨̧̧̳̱̜͓̮͍̣̬̩̜̙͚̑̌́̑͋̽͗̎͑̊͛̍́͒̕͝͠Ḙ̵̥̥̘̻͔͛̑͒̿͋͝͝ ̶̡͚̬͈̏͌̓̔̈̔̀͌̔̓̾̓͘͝P̷͙̃́̈͐̆̂́͗̏͌̈́Ô̶͎͓̹͖̘̟̬͚̻̦̩͔͛͜͠ͅŅ̶͖̜̱͍̦̔̊͐͆̾̎́́̈́̄̓ͅẎ̸̨̭̜̼͎̜̜͕̥͙̼̤̟̞̄̊̂́ͅ ̴̡̡̛̲̟̳̯͔̝̟͙̌̽͋̏̾̆̅̏̐̅͑̿̀͒̉H̵̪̞̩̥̫̺̅̑̈́̾͌͛́̾̅̈͛͒̾̌̈͐͝Ȅ̶̘̲͙̖̬̞͕̱͍̥͈̦͈͍͔̩̑̒̐̇̑̈́̏͊̽͜͝͝͝ ̸̨̛̛̻̘̙̯̰̦̻͈͓̒̽̉̈̄̌̄͊͂̈͆ͅC̵͙̗̣̮͈̜̪̞̰̣͎̙̏̌̄͗͜Ȯ̸͇̖̼͈̗̝͔̜̘̲̦̦̾̃̆̍͝͝ͅM̷̨̧̮͕̠̘̔ͅÉ̶̡̡̢̡͕̺̗̩̝̩͇͓̄͐͆͛̔̈́̕͜ͅS̵̡͙̬͔̞̞̳͓̜͔͑̌̓̎͆͌̈͌̌̂͛̚͘͝
d̶̢̢͖͉̪͖̠̹͇̺̜̼̦̗͍̓̅̊̋́̌̈́̌̐͐̔̅̄̚͜͝ͅͅȍ̷̢̧̦̼͉̝̦͓͖̽͜ǫ̷̫̤͐̀̾̈̇́̈́͛̐̔̀͜͜͝͝͠k̸̩̠̥̦̤̜͈͎̖̜̪̘͚̖̫̝̝͛̈́̇͒͜͝ͅì̷̧͈̥͇̤̝͈̹͕̽̑͌̐́̓̈́̈́ȩ̴̘̠͍͎̜̝̰̼̝̭̹͖͇͚̦͈̼̑̊͗́́̒͐̂̂̾̊̀͜͝
Once you learn about parser combinators, all other parsing looks pretty dopey.
xpath <3
no, this is one of the worst answers on Stack Overflow
OP had a specific question to capture opening tags. The thing OP asked about can be done with regular expressions. It is true that arbitrarily nested languages like HTML cannot generally be parsed with regular expressions, but that is not what OP asked about.
This is StackOverflow after all. Your question is wrong. Your problem is wrong. You are wrong. I am right. Thread locked. Go read this other post that is totally unrelated to your problem I’ve decided isn’t the problem you’re facing because. I. Am. Right.
Could be worse. At least it’s not Microsoft’s support forums:
(Reply marked as solution, thread closed.)
deleted by creator
Magic may be an overstatement. I would be shocked if any of them fixed even 0.1% of the problems posted to Microsoft’s joke of a support forum where they were presented as solutions.
answers.mirosoft.com is the worst. learn.microsoft.com can be decent at times though
That’s why LLMs are so infuriatingly stubborn, they’re trained on these keyboard warriors
I had a decade old question marked as a duplicate and downvoted three times after years no no activity. SE is such a joke nowadays.
It can be done with simple regex of the kind proposed in various answers there iff the html is known to be limited to the subset of html where that sort of thing can easily be made to work. The question does not tell us whether or not that is the case, so everyone is free to make their own assumptions and argue as if they know what’s going on.
It can’t be done, as an opening tag in html can contain anything in its attributes, even JavaScript (e.g. onclick handler).
??? Non sequitur
You can’t parse every html opening tag with regex, because a html opening tag doesn’t have a set structure. How would you match, with regex, this opening tag?
<mytag myattribute="<value of \"myattribute\">" >Is this valid HTML? My understanding is that that attribute value needs to be escaped, i.e
<value of \"myattribute\">.The quote must not be escaped when you start with a single quote. The rest doesn’t. This is valid and tested:
<img alt='my "<img>"'>I once applied to an internship for a company doing job offers aggregation. During the interview they explained to me that the core of what they did was parsing (partial) html with regex. When I asked why they wouldn’t develop a custom parser, they replied to me that they were working on it, but that the internship wouldn’t focus on that. I was not disappointed when it didn’t get the job.
There is a famous Erik Naggum rant about XML at, no wait, I better not link it but you can find it with a search engine if you want, which means you don’t get to complain to me about it since you are the one who went looking for it. Very NSFW and VERY politically incorrect. Naggum died in 2009 but anyone who published a thing like that today would be raked over the coals.
OP isn’t trying to parse HTML though… they are trying to detect opening xml tags. Which seems quite achievable with regex.
It’s still actually pretty sketchy, depending on exactly what you want to do. Strict regex still won’t be able to match correctly if you want to match what an HTML parser considers the opening tag, though fancier regex will. If you’re just looking for the tags in the HTML document as a flat document it’s doable, though. (Mostly.)
Man, do gen z and alpha even know what Zalgo is?
SO in a nutshell:
“I need to do X”
“Have you tried Y?”
“No, because I don’t need Y, I need X.”
“Well you can do Z if you can’t do Y.”
“OK, sure. But how do I do X?”
“Why do you need to do X?”
(Explains why in my hyper-specific situation, I need to do X, and Y and Z won’t work)
This question has been marked as a duplicate of “How to do Y”
More like:
Edit: I’ve got insomnia and don’t have my glasses on and misread the end.
Except in 99% of cases the person is asking an xy problem, and if they ever explained the why, they would get a proper answer.
Often the reason no one does the hyper-specific thing, is that there are better non code solutions, it’s massively insecure, or is just stupid micromanaging.
That’s funny, every time I’ve explained in detail why my question isn’t a duplicate nobody fucking cares and it still gets closed.
You know, when I typically ask a question on SO, its because I want to learn how that thing works, or how to write it myself. I usually say as much, but the SO folks are too focused on the ends, they completely neglect the means. Chances are I’m already aware of that no-code solution, but that’s not what I’m asking for.
I think there’s an element of responsibility that some people feel when they respond. If you’re asking for a very niche solution that is likely to create other problems in the future, should anyone else look at your code or refactor it or rely on it, or should you forget how it works, perhaps people are going to be less inclined in helping you craft it.
If you still want to craft it, that’s okay, but you have to expect that some real percent of the answers are going to be those folk who know what the tried and true solution is, often because they’ve lived through the reality that you’re attempting to create and they’ve dealt with the aftermath of doing it special and different.
Which is fine when people do not reject the answers that are different from what they were expecting. Learning that the problem you have is a reason that noone does this, is a valid thing to learn.
It’s usually when I see people moving the goal posts on replies, or complaining that they didn’t answer the exact question that i see as frustrating. Or “I don’t want to do that” with no more info.
But if you are aware of other solutions, you should state that in the question and give your reasons. It’s a waste of time if you know someone might suggest what you have dismissed already.
The html question is a classic for this, they want to find non self closed tags. Why? Why can’t they use a parser? What are they doing with this info? All questions that would give you a good idea on how the problem can be solved. Playing with regex would be a valid answer to that, but is not stated. Unfortunately I find so’s format discourages extra interrogation.
The answer is not an attack on the person, but a frustration at the people before that ignored previous answers to use a parser.
Always start SO questions with X/Y problem pre-empting
These people are everywhere and will stop at nothing to make you click on one of these
https://xyproblem.info/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34444353 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem
They are trying to derail your question, which was already a generalized version of what your actual question was. And of course, you would need to explain everything you generalized out of your question (which would probably all get deleted by someone editing your question and removing all the irrelevant facts) by which point your question becomes so complicated nobody can answer it, even though they could have answered the generalized version.
My advice, just use chatgpt or mistral, 99% you will get a better answer than stackoverflow. And you will get this actionnable answer IMMEDIATELY !
I would say it’s more like: “How can I do X?” “Here are some reasons you can’t do Y.”
The answers should have been “Here are some reasons doing X is hard, but here’s an attempt at it anyway and also some more robust alternatives to doing X.” That would have been an excellent answer. (If you go down far enough you do start to see things like this but they’re hindered by people still responding that you can’t do Y or downvoting because they don’t understand what’s happening.)
Using a regex on html is like eating wild mushrooms that you found in the woods. There are times where it’s appropriate and safe, other times where it’s completely insane and possibly deadly, and it takes considerable experience to know how to tell the difference.
So all the misery in the world is related to webdevs trying to parse html with regex?
You bastards.