Related
There is no day on SO that passes without a question about parsing (X)HTML or XML with regular expressions being asked.
While it's relatively easy to come up with examples that demonstrates the non-viability of regexes for this task or with a collection of expressions to represent the concept, I could still not find on SO a formal explanation of why this is not possible done in layman's terms.
The only formal explanations I could find so far on this site are probably extremely accurate, but also quite cryptic to the self-taught programmer:
the flaw here is that HTML is a Chomsky Type 2 grammar (context free
grammar) and RegEx is a Chomsky Type 3 grammar (regular expression)
or:
Regular expressions can only match regular languages but HTML is a
context-free language.
or:
A finite automaton (which is the data structure underlying a regular
expression) does not have memory apart from the state it's in, and if
you have arbitrarily deep nesting, you need an arbitrarily large
automaton, which collides with the notion of a finite automaton.
or:
The Pumping lemma for regular languages is the reason why you can't do
that.
[To be fair: the majority of the above explanation link to wikipedia pages, but these are not much easier to understand than the answers themselves].
So my question is: could somebody please provide a translation in layman's terms of the formal explanations given above of why it is not possible to use regex for parsing (X)HTML/XML?
EDIT: After reading the first answer I thought that I should clarify: I am looking for a "translation" that also briefely explains the concepts it tries to translate: at the end of an answer, the reader should have a rough idea - for example - of what "regular language" and "context-free grammar" mean...
Concentrate on this one:
A finite automaton (which is the data structure underlying a regular
expression) does not have memory apart from the state it's in, and if
you have arbitrarily deep nesting, you need an arbitrarily large
automaton, which collides with the notion of a finite automaton.
The definition of regular expressions is equivalent to the fact that a test of whether a string matches the pattern can be performed by a finite automaton (one different automaton for each pattern). A finite automaton has no memory - no stack, no heap, no infinite tape to scribble on. All it has is a finite number of internal states, each of which can read a unit of input from the string being tested, and use that to decide which state to move to next. As special cases, it has two termination states: "yes, that matched", and "no, that didn't match".
HTML, on the other hand, has structures that can nest arbitrarily deep. To determine whether a file is valid HTML or not, you need to check that all the closing tags match a previous opening tag. To understand it, you need to know which element is being closed. Without any means to "remember" what opening tags you've seen, no chance.
Note however that most "regex" libraries actually permit more than just the strict definition of regular expressions. If they can match back-references, then they've gone beyond a regular language. So the reason why you shouldn't use a regex library on HTML is a little more complex than the simple fact that HTML is not regular.
The fact that HTML doesn't represent a regular language is a red herring. Regular expression and regular languages sound sort of similar, but are not - they do share the same origin, but there's a notable distance between the academic "regular languages" and the current matching power of engines. In fact, almost all modern regular expression engines support non-regular features - a simple example is (.*)\1. which uses backreferencing to match a repeated sequence of characters - for example 123123, or bonbon. Matching of recursive/balanced structures make these even more fun.
Wikipedia puts this nicely, in a quote by Larry Wall:
'Regular expressions' [...] are only marginally related to real regular expressions. Nevertheless, the term has grown with the capabilities of our pattern matching engines, so I'm not going to try to fight linguistic necessity here. I will, however, generally call them "regexes" (or "regexen", when I'm in an Anglo-Saxon mood).
"Regular expression can only match regular languages", as you can see, is nothing more than a commonly stated fallacy.
So, why not then?
A good reason not to match HTML with regular expression is that "just because you can doesn't mean you should". While may be possible - there are simply better tools for the job. Considering:
Valid HTML is harder/more complex than you may think.
There are many types of "valid" HTML - what is valid in HTML, for example, isn't valid in XHTML.
Much of the free-form HTML found on the internet is not valid anyway. HTML libraries do a good job of dealing with these as well, and were tested for many of these common cases.
Very often it is impossible to match a part of the data without parsing it as a whole. For example, you might be looking for all titles, and end up matching inside a comment or a string literal. <h1>.*?</h1> may be a bold attempt at finding the main title, but it might find:
<!-- <h1>not the title!</h1> -->
Or even:
<script>
var s = "Certainly <h1>not the title!</h1>";
</script>
Last point is the most important:
Using a dedicated HTML parser is better than any regex you can come up with. Very often, XPath allows a better expressive way of finding the data you need, and using an HTML parser is much easier than most people realize.
A good summary of the subject, and an important comment on when mixing Regex and HTML may be appropriate, can be found in Jeff Atwood's blog: Parsing Html The Cthulhu Way.
When is it better to use a regular expression to parse HTML?
In most cases, it is better to use XPath on the DOM structure a library can give you. Still, against popular opinion, there are a few cases when I would strongly recommend using a regex and not a parser library:
Given a few of these conditions:
When you need a one-time update of your HTML files, and you know the structure is consistent.
When you have a very small snippet of HTML.
When you aren't dealing with an HTML file, but a similar templating engine (it can be very hard to find a parser in that case).
When you want to change parts of the HTML, but not all of it - a parser, to my knowledge, cannot answer this request: it will parse the whole document, and save a whole document, changing parts you never wanted to change.
Because HTML can have unlimited nesting of <tags><inside><tags and="<things><that><look></like></tags>"></inside></each></other> and regex can't really cope with that because it can't track a history of what it's descended into and come out of.
A simple construct that illustrates the difficulty:
<body><div id="foo">Hi there! <div id="bar">Bye!</div></div></body>
99.9% of generalized regex-based extraction routines will be unable to correctly give me everything inside the div with the ID foo, because they can't tell the closing tag for that div from the closing tag for the bar div. That is because they have no way of saying "okay, I've now descended into the second of two divs, so the next div close I see brings me back out one, and the one after that is the close tag for the first". Programmers typically respond by devising special-case regexes for the specific situation, which then break as soon as more tags are introduced inside foo and have to be unsnarled at tremendous cost in time and frustration. This is why people get mad about the whole thing.
A regular language is a language that can be matched by a finite state machine.
(Understanding Finite State machines, Push-down machines, and Turing machines is basically the curriculum of a fourth year college CS Course.)
Consider the following machine, which recognizes the string "hi".
(Start) --Read h-->(A)--Read i-->(Succeed)
\ \
\ -- read any other value-->(Fail)
-- read any other value-->(Fail)
This is a simple machine to recognize a regular language; Each expression in parenthesis is a state, and each arrow is a transition. Building a machine like this will allow you to test any input string against a regular language -- hence, a regular expression.
HTML requires you to know more than just what state you are in -- it requires a history of what you have seen before, to match tag nesting. You can accomplish this if you add a stack to the machine, but then it is no longer "regular". This is called a Push-down machine, and recognizes a grammar.
A regular expression is a machine with a finite (and typically rather small) number of discrete states.
To parse XML, C, or any other language with arbitrary nesting of language elements, you need to remember how deep you are. That is, you must be able to count braces/brackets/tags.
You cannot count with finite memory. There may be more brace levels than you have states! You might be able to parse a subset of your language that restricts the number of nesting levels, but it would be very tedious.
A grammar is a formal definition of where words can go. For example, adjectives preceed nouns in English grammar, but follow nouns en la gramática española.
Context-free means that the grammar works universally in all contexts. Context-sensitive means there are additional rules in certain contexts.
In C#, for example, using means something different in using System; at the top of files, than using (var sw = new StringWriter (...)). A more relevant example is the following code within code:
void Start ()
{
string myCode = #"
void Start()
{
Console.WriteLine (""x"");
}
";
}
There's another practical reason for not using regular expressions to parse XML and HTML that has nothing to do with the computer science theory at all: your regular expression will either be hideously complicated, or it will be wrong.
For example, it's all very well writing a regular expression to match
<price>10.65</price>
But if your code is to be correct, then:
It must allow whitespace after the element name in both start and end tag
If the document is in a namespace, then it should allow any namespace prefix to be used
It should probably allow and ignore any unknown attributes appearing in the start tag (depending on the semantics of the particular vocabulary)
It may need to allow whitespace before and after the decimal value (again, depending on the detailed rules of the particular XML vocabulary).
It should not match something that looks like an element, but is actually in a comment or CDATA section (this becomes especially important if there is a possibility of malicious data trying to fool your parser).
It may need to provide diagnostics if the input is invalid.
Of course some of this depends on the quality standards you are applying. We see a lot of problems on StackOverflow with people having to generate XML in a particular way (for example, with no whitespace in the tags) because it is being read by an application that requires it to be written in a particular way. If your code has any kind of longevity then it's important that it should be able to process incoming XML written in any way that the XML standard permits, and not just the one sample input document that you are testing your code on.
So others have gone and given brief definitions for most of these things, but I don't really think they cover WHY normal regex's are what they are.
There are some great resources on what a finite state machine is, but in short, a seminal paper in computer science proved that the basic grammar of regex's (the standard ones, used by grep, not the extended ones, like PCRE) can always be manipulated into a finite-state machine, meaning a 'machine' where you are always in a box, and have a limited number of ways to move to the next box. In short, you can always tell what the next 'thing' you need to do is just by looking at the current character. (And yes, even when it comes to things like 'match at least 4, but no more than 5 times', you can still create a machine like this) (I should note that note that the machine I describe here is technically only a subtype of finite-state machines, but it can implement any other subtype, so...)
This is great because you can always very efficiently evaluate such a machine, even for large inputs. Studying these sorts of questions (how does my algorithm behave when the number of things I feed it gets big) is called studying the computational complexity of the technique. If you're familiar with how a lot of calculus deals with how functions behave as they approach infinity, well, that's pretty much it.
So whats so great about a standard regular expression? Well, any given regex can match a string of length N in no more than O(N) time (meaning that doubling the length of your input doubles the time it takes: it says nothing about the speed for a given input) (of course, some are faster: the regex * could match in O(1), meaning constant, time). The reason is simple: remember, because the system has only a few paths from each state, you never 'go back', and you only need to check each character once. That means even if I pass you a 100 gigabyte file, you'll still be able to crunch through it pretty quickly: which is great!.
Now, its pretty clear why you can't use such a machine to parse arbitrary XML: you can have infinite tags-in-tags, and to parse correctly you need an infinite number of states. But, if you allow recursive replaces, a PCRE is Turing complete: so it could totally parse HTML! Even if you don't, a PCRE can parse any context-free grammar, including XML. So the answer is "yeah, you can". Now, it might take exponential time (you can't use our neat finite-state machine, so you need to use a big fancy parser that can rewind, which means that a crafted expression will take centuries on a big file), but still. Possible.
But lets talk real quick about why that's an awful idea. First of all, while you'll see a ton of people saying "omg, regex's are so powerful", the reality is... they aren't. What they are is simple. The language is dead simple: you only need to know a few meta-characters and their meanings, and you can understand (eventually) anything written in it. However, the issue is that those meta-characters are all you have. See, they can do a lot, but they're meant to express fairly simple things concisely, not to try and describe a complicated process.
And XML sure is complicated. It's pretty easy to find examples in some of the other answers: you can't match stuff inside comment fields, ect. Representing all of that in a programming language takes work: and that's with the benefits of variables and functions! PCRE's, for all their features, can't come close to that. Any hand-made implementation will be buggy: scanning blobs of meta-characters to check matching parenthesis is hard, and it's not like you can comment your code. It'd be easier to define a meta-language, and compile that down to a regex: and at that point, you might as well just take the language you wrote your meta-compiler with and write an XML parser. It'd be easier for you, faster to run, and just better overall.
For more neat info on this, check out this site. It does a great job of explaining all this stuff in layman's terms.
Don't parse XML/HTML with regex, use a proper XML/HTML parser and a powerful xpath query.
theory :
According to the compiling theory, XML/HTML can't be parsed using regex based on finite state machine. Due to hierarchical construction of XML/HTML you need to use a pushdown automaton and manipulate LALR grammar using tool like YACC.
realLife©®™ everyday tool in a shell :
You can use one of the following :
xmllint often installed by default with libxml2, xpath1 (check my wrapper to have newlines delimited output
xmlstarlet can edit, select, transform... Not installed by default, xpath1
xpath installed via perl's module XML::XPath, xpath1
xidel xpath3
saxon-lint my own project, wrapper over #Michael Kay's Saxon-HE Java library, xpath3
or you can use high level languages and proper libs, I think of :
python's lxml (from lxml import etree)
perl's XML::LibXML, XML::XPath, XML::Twig::XPath, HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath
ruby nokogiri, check this example
php DOMXpath, check this example
Check: Using regular expressions with HTML tags
In a purely theoretical sense, it is impossible for regular expressions to parse XML. They are defined in a way that allows them no memory of any previous state, thus preventing the correct matching of an arbitrary tag, and they cannot penetrate to an arbitrary depth of nesting, since the nesting would need to be built into the regular expression.
Modern regex parsers, however, are built for their utility to the developer, rather than their adherence to a precise definition. As such, we have things like back-references and recursion that make use of knowledge of previous states. Using these, it is remarkably simple to create a regex that can explore, validate, or parse XML.
Consider for example,
(?:
<!\-\-[\S\s]*?\-\->
|
<([\w\-\.]+)[^>]*?
(?:
\/>
|
>
(?:
[^<]
|
(?R)
)*
<\/\1>
)
)
This will find the next properly formed XML tag or comment, and it will only find it if it's entire contents are properly formed. (This expression has been tested using Notepad++, which uses Boost C++'s regex library, which closely approximates PCRE.)
Here's how it works:
The first chunk matches a comment. It's necessary for this to come first so that it will deal with any commented-out code that otherwise might cause hang ups.
If that doesn't match, it will look for the beginning of a tag. Note that it uses parentheses to capture the name.
This tag will either end in a />, thus completing the tag, or it will end with a >, in which case it will continue by examining the tag's contents.
It will continue parsing until it reaches a <, at which point it will recurse back to the beginning of the expression, allowing it to deal with either a comment or a new tag.
It will continue through the loop until it arrives at either the end of the text or at a < that it cannot parse. Failing to match will, of course, cause it to start the process over. Otherwise, the < is presumably the beginning of the closing tag for this iteration. Using the back-reference inside a closing tag <\/\1>, it will match the opening tag for the current iteration (depth). There's only one capturing group, so this match is a simple matter. This makes it independent of the names of the tags used, although you could modify the capturing group to capture only specific tags, if you need to.
At this point it will either kick out of the current recursion, up to the next level or end with a match.
This example solves problems dealing with whitespace or identifying relevant content through the use of character groups that merely negate < or >, or in the case of the comments, by using [\S\s], which will match anything, including carriage returns and new lines, even in single-line mode, continuing until it reaches a
-->. Hence, it simply treats everything as valid until it reaches something meaningful.
For most purposes, a regex like this isn't particularly useful. It will validate that XML is properly formed, but that's all it will really do, and it doesn't account for properties (although this would be an easy addition). It's only this simple because it leaves out real world issues like this, as well as definitions of tag names. Fitting it for real use would make it much more of a beast. In general, a true XML parser would be far superior. This one is probably best suited for teaching how recursion works.
Long story short: use an XML parser for real work, and use this if you want to play around with regexes.
There is no day on SO that passes without a question about parsing (X)HTML or XML with regular expressions being asked.
While it's relatively easy to come up with examples that demonstrates the non-viability of regexes for this task or with a collection of expressions to represent the concept, I could still not find on SO a formal explanation of why this is not possible done in layman's terms.
The only formal explanations I could find so far on this site are probably extremely accurate, but also quite cryptic to the self-taught programmer:
the flaw here is that HTML is a Chomsky Type 2 grammar (context free
grammar) and RegEx is a Chomsky Type 3 grammar (regular expression)
or:
Regular expressions can only match regular languages but HTML is a
context-free language.
or:
A finite automaton (which is the data structure underlying a regular
expression) does not have memory apart from the state it's in, and if
you have arbitrarily deep nesting, you need an arbitrarily large
automaton, which collides with the notion of a finite automaton.
or:
The Pumping lemma for regular languages is the reason why you can't do
that.
[To be fair: the majority of the above explanation link to wikipedia pages, but these are not much easier to understand than the answers themselves].
So my question is: could somebody please provide a translation in layman's terms of the formal explanations given above of why it is not possible to use regex for parsing (X)HTML/XML?
EDIT: After reading the first answer I thought that I should clarify: I am looking for a "translation" that also briefely explains the concepts it tries to translate: at the end of an answer, the reader should have a rough idea - for example - of what "regular language" and "context-free grammar" mean...
Concentrate on this one:
A finite automaton (which is the data structure underlying a regular
expression) does not have memory apart from the state it's in, and if
you have arbitrarily deep nesting, you need an arbitrarily large
automaton, which collides with the notion of a finite automaton.
The definition of regular expressions is equivalent to the fact that a test of whether a string matches the pattern can be performed by a finite automaton (one different automaton for each pattern). A finite automaton has no memory - no stack, no heap, no infinite tape to scribble on. All it has is a finite number of internal states, each of which can read a unit of input from the string being tested, and use that to decide which state to move to next. As special cases, it has two termination states: "yes, that matched", and "no, that didn't match".
HTML, on the other hand, has structures that can nest arbitrarily deep. To determine whether a file is valid HTML or not, you need to check that all the closing tags match a previous opening tag. To understand it, you need to know which element is being closed. Without any means to "remember" what opening tags you've seen, no chance.
Note however that most "regex" libraries actually permit more than just the strict definition of regular expressions. If they can match back-references, then they've gone beyond a regular language. So the reason why you shouldn't use a regex library on HTML is a little more complex than the simple fact that HTML is not regular.
The fact that HTML doesn't represent a regular language is a red herring. Regular expression and regular languages sound sort of similar, but are not - they do share the same origin, but there's a notable distance between the academic "regular languages" and the current matching power of engines. In fact, almost all modern regular expression engines support non-regular features - a simple example is (.*)\1. which uses backreferencing to match a repeated sequence of characters - for example 123123, or bonbon. Matching of recursive/balanced structures make these even more fun.
Wikipedia puts this nicely, in a quote by Larry Wall:
'Regular expressions' [...] are only marginally related to real regular expressions. Nevertheless, the term has grown with the capabilities of our pattern matching engines, so I'm not going to try to fight linguistic necessity here. I will, however, generally call them "regexes" (or "regexen", when I'm in an Anglo-Saxon mood).
"Regular expression can only match regular languages", as you can see, is nothing more than a commonly stated fallacy.
So, why not then?
A good reason not to match HTML with regular expression is that "just because you can doesn't mean you should". While may be possible - there are simply better tools for the job. Considering:
Valid HTML is harder/more complex than you may think.
There are many types of "valid" HTML - what is valid in HTML, for example, isn't valid in XHTML.
Much of the free-form HTML found on the internet is not valid anyway. HTML libraries do a good job of dealing with these as well, and were tested for many of these common cases.
Very often it is impossible to match a part of the data without parsing it as a whole. For example, you might be looking for all titles, and end up matching inside a comment or a string literal. <h1>.*?</h1> may be a bold attempt at finding the main title, but it might find:
<!-- <h1>not the title!</h1> -->
Or even:
<script>
var s = "Certainly <h1>not the title!</h1>";
</script>
Last point is the most important:
Using a dedicated HTML parser is better than any regex you can come up with. Very often, XPath allows a better expressive way of finding the data you need, and using an HTML parser is much easier than most people realize.
A good summary of the subject, and an important comment on when mixing Regex and HTML may be appropriate, can be found in Jeff Atwood's blog: Parsing Html The Cthulhu Way.
When is it better to use a regular expression to parse HTML?
In most cases, it is better to use XPath on the DOM structure a library can give you. Still, against popular opinion, there are a few cases when I would strongly recommend using a regex and not a parser library:
Given a few of these conditions:
When you need a one-time update of your HTML files, and you know the structure is consistent.
When you have a very small snippet of HTML.
When you aren't dealing with an HTML file, but a similar templating engine (it can be very hard to find a parser in that case).
When you want to change parts of the HTML, but not all of it - a parser, to my knowledge, cannot answer this request: it will parse the whole document, and save a whole document, changing parts you never wanted to change.
Because HTML can have unlimited nesting of <tags><inside><tags and="<things><that><look></like></tags>"></inside></each></other> and regex can't really cope with that because it can't track a history of what it's descended into and come out of.
A simple construct that illustrates the difficulty:
<body><div id="foo">Hi there! <div id="bar">Bye!</div></div></body>
99.9% of generalized regex-based extraction routines will be unable to correctly give me everything inside the div with the ID foo, because they can't tell the closing tag for that div from the closing tag for the bar div. That is because they have no way of saying "okay, I've now descended into the second of two divs, so the next div close I see brings me back out one, and the one after that is the close tag for the first". Programmers typically respond by devising special-case regexes for the specific situation, which then break as soon as more tags are introduced inside foo and have to be unsnarled at tremendous cost in time and frustration. This is why people get mad about the whole thing.
A regular language is a language that can be matched by a finite state machine.
(Understanding Finite State machines, Push-down machines, and Turing machines is basically the curriculum of a fourth year college CS Course.)
Consider the following machine, which recognizes the string "hi".
(Start) --Read h-->(A)--Read i-->(Succeed)
\ \
\ -- read any other value-->(Fail)
-- read any other value-->(Fail)
This is a simple machine to recognize a regular language; Each expression in parenthesis is a state, and each arrow is a transition. Building a machine like this will allow you to test any input string against a regular language -- hence, a regular expression.
HTML requires you to know more than just what state you are in -- it requires a history of what you have seen before, to match tag nesting. You can accomplish this if you add a stack to the machine, but then it is no longer "regular". This is called a Push-down machine, and recognizes a grammar.
A regular expression is a machine with a finite (and typically rather small) number of discrete states.
To parse XML, C, or any other language with arbitrary nesting of language elements, you need to remember how deep you are. That is, you must be able to count braces/brackets/tags.
You cannot count with finite memory. There may be more brace levels than you have states! You might be able to parse a subset of your language that restricts the number of nesting levels, but it would be very tedious.
A grammar is a formal definition of where words can go. For example, adjectives preceed nouns in English grammar, but follow nouns en la gramática española.
Context-free means that the grammar works universally in all contexts. Context-sensitive means there are additional rules in certain contexts.
In C#, for example, using means something different in using System; at the top of files, than using (var sw = new StringWriter (...)). A more relevant example is the following code within code:
void Start ()
{
string myCode = #"
void Start()
{
Console.WriteLine (""x"");
}
";
}
There's another practical reason for not using regular expressions to parse XML and HTML that has nothing to do with the computer science theory at all: your regular expression will either be hideously complicated, or it will be wrong.
For example, it's all very well writing a regular expression to match
<price>10.65</price>
But if your code is to be correct, then:
It must allow whitespace after the element name in both start and end tag
If the document is in a namespace, then it should allow any namespace prefix to be used
It should probably allow and ignore any unknown attributes appearing in the start tag (depending on the semantics of the particular vocabulary)
It may need to allow whitespace before and after the decimal value (again, depending on the detailed rules of the particular XML vocabulary).
It should not match something that looks like an element, but is actually in a comment or CDATA section (this becomes especially important if there is a possibility of malicious data trying to fool your parser).
It may need to provide diagnostics if the input is invalid.
Of course some of this depends on the quality standards you are applying. We see a lot of problems on StackOverflow with people having to generate XML in a particular way (for example, with no whitespace in the tags) because it is being read by an application that requires it to be written in a particular way. If your code has any kind of longevity then it's important that it should be able to process incoming XML written in any way that the XML standard permits, and not just the one sample input document that you are testing your code on.
So others have gone and given brief definitions for most of these things, but I don't really think they cover WHY normal regex's are what they are.
There are some great resources on what a finite state machine is, but in short, a seminal paper in computer science proved that the basic grammar of regex's (the standard ones, used by grep, not the extended ones, like PCRE) can always be manipulated into a finite-state machine, meaning a 'machine' where you are always in a box, and have a limited number of ways to move to the next box. In short, you can always tell what the next 'thing' you need to do is just by looking at the current character. (And yes, even when it comes to things like 'match at least 4, but no more than 5 times', you can still create a machine like this) (I should note that note that the machine I describe here is technically only a subtype of finite-state machines, but it can implement any other subtype, so...)
This is great because you can always very efficiently evaluate such a machine, even for large inputs. Studying these sorts of questions (how does my algorithm behave when the number of things I feed it gets big) is called studying the computational complexity of the technique. If you're familiar with how a lot of calculus deals with how functions behave as they approach infinity, well, that's pretty much it.
So whats so great about a standard regular expression? Well, any given regex can match a string of length N in no more than O(N) time (meaning that doubling the length of your input doubles the time it takes: it says nothing about the speed for a given input) (of course, some are faster: the regex * could match in O(1), meaning constant, time). The reason is simple: remember, because the system has only a few paths from each state, you never 'go back', and you only need to check each character once. That means even if I pass you a 100 gigabyte file, you'll still be able to crunch through it pretty quickly: which is great!.
Now, its pretty clear why you can't use such a machine to parse arbitrary XML: you can have infinite tags-in-tags, and to parse correctly you need an infinite number of states. But, if you allow recursive replaces, a PCRE is Turing complete: so it could totally parse HTML! Even if you don't, a PCRE can parse any context-free grammar, including XML. So the answer is "yeah, you can". Now, it might take exponential time (you can't use our neat finite-state machine, so you need to use a big fancy parser that can rewind, which means that a crafted expression will take centuries on a big file), but still. Possible.
But lets talk real quick about why that's an awful idea. First of all, while you'll see a ton of people saying "omg, regex's are so powerful", the reality is... they aren't. What they are is simple. The language is dead simple: you only need to know a few meta-characters and their meanings, and you can understand (eventually) anything written in it. However, the issue is that those meta-characters are all you have. See, they can do a lot, but they're meant to express fairly simple things concisely, not to try and describe a complicated process.
And XML sure is complicated. It's pretty easy to find examples in some of the other answers: you can't match stuff inside comment fields, ect. Representing all of that in a programming language takes work: and that's with the benefits of variables and functions! PCRE's, for all their features, can't come close to that. Any hand-made implementation will be buggy: scanning blobs of meta-characters to check matching parenthesis is hard, and it's not like you can comment your code. It'd be easier to define a meta-language, and compile that down to a regex: and at that point, you might as well just take the language you wrote your meta-compiler with and write an XML parser. It'd be easier for you, faster to run, and just better overall.
For more neat info on this, check out this site. It does a great job of explaining all this stuff in layman's terms.
Don't parse XML/HTML with regex, use a proper XML/HTML parser and a powerful xpath query.
theory :
According to the compiling theory, XML/HTML can't be parsed using regex based on finite state machine. Due to hierarchical construction of XML/HTML you need to use a pushdown automaton and manipulate LALR grammar using tool like YACC.
realLife©®™ everyday tool in a shell :
You can use one of the following :
xmllint often installed by default with libxml2, xpath1 (check my wrapper to have newlines delimited output
xmlstarlet can edit, select, transform... Not installed by default, xpath1
xpath installed via perl's module XML::XPath, xpath1
xidel xpath3
saxon-lint my own project, wrapper over #Michael Kay's Saxon-HE Java library, xpath3
or you can use high level languages and proper libs, I think of :
python's lxml (from lxml import etree)
perl's XML::LibXML, XML::XPath, XML::Twig::XPath, HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath
ruby nokogiri, check this example
php DOMXpath, check this example
Check: Using regular expressions with HTML tags
In a purely theoretical sense, it is impossible for regular expressions to parse XML. They are defined in a way that allows them no memory of any previous state, thus preventing the correct matching of an arbitrary tag, and they cannot penetrate to an arbitrary depth of nesting, since the nesting would need to be built into the regular expression.
Modern regex parsers, however, are built for their utility to the developer, rather than their adherence to a precise definition. As such, we have things like back-references and recursion that make use of knowledge of previous states. Using these, it is remarkably simple to create a regex that can explore, validate, or parse XML.
Consider for example,
(?:
<!\-\-[\S\s]*?\-\->
|
<([\w\-\.]+)[^>]*?
(?:
\/>
|
>
(?:
[^<]
|
(?R)
)*
<\/\1>
)
)
This will find the next properly formed XML tag or comment, and it will only find it if it's entire contents are properly formed. (This expression has been tested using Notepad++, which uses Boost C++'s regex library, which closely approximates PCRE.)
Here's how it works:
The first chunk matches a comment. It's necessary for this to come first so that it will deal with any commented-out code that otherwise might cause hang ups.
If that doesn't match, it will look for the beginning of a tag. Note that it uses parentheses to capture the name.
This tag will either end in a />, thus completing the tag, or it will end with a >, in which case it will continue by examining the tag's contents.
It will continue parsing until it reaches a <, at which point it will recurse back to the beginning of the expression, allowing it to deal with either a comment or a new tag.
It will continue through the loop until it arrives at either the end of the text or at a < that it cannot parse. Failing to match will, of course, cause it to start the process over. Otherwise, the < is presumably the beginning of the closing tag for this iteration. Using the back-reference inside a closing tag <\/\1>, it will match the opening tag for the current iteration (depth). There's only one capturing group, so this match is a simple matter. This makes it independent of the names of the tags used, although you could modify the capturing group to capture only specific tags, if you need to.
At this point it will either kick out of the current recursion, up to the next level or end with a match.
This example solves problems dealing with whitespace or identifying relevant content through the use of character groups that merely negate < or >, or in the case of the comments, by using [\S\s], which will match anything, including carriage returns and new lines, even in single-line mode, continuing until it reaches a
-->. Hence, it simply treats everything as valid until it reaches something meaningful.
For most purposes, a regex like this isn't particularly useful. It will validate that XML is properly formed, but that's all it will really do, and it doesn't account for properties (although this would be an easy addition). It's only this simple because it leaves out real world issues like this, as well as definitions of tag names. Fitting it for real use would make it much more of a beast. In general, a true XML parser would be far superior. This one is probably best suited for teaching how recursion works.
Long story short: use an XML parser for real work, and use this if you want to play around with regexes.
I want to extract the words that begin with a capital — including accented capitals — using regular expressions in Java.
This is my conditional for words beginning with capital A through Z:
if (link.text().matches("^[A-Z].+") == true)
But I also want words that begin with an accented uppercase character, too.
Do you have any ideas?
Start with http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/regex/Pattern.html
\p{javaUpperCase} Equivalent to java.lang.Character.isUpperCase()
To match an uppercase letter at the beginning of the string, you need the pattern ^\p{Lu}.
Unfortunately, Java does not support the mandatory \p{Uppercase} property, necessary for meeting UTS#18’s RL1.2.
That’s hardly the only thing missing from Java regular expressions to meet even Level 1, the most bareboned Basic Unicode Functionality. Without Level 1, you really can’t work with Unicode test using regular expressions. Too much is broken or absent.
UTS#18’s RL1.1 will finally be met with JDK7, but I do not believe there are currently any plans to meet RL1.2, RL1.2a, or any of the others that it’s currently lacking, nor even meeting the two Strong Recommendations. Alas!
Indeed, of the very short list of mandatory properties required by RL1.2, Java is missing the \p{Alphabetic}, \p{Uppercase}, \p{Lowercase}, \p{White_Space}, \p{Noncharacter_Code_Point}, \p{Default_Ignorable_Code_Point}, \p{ANY}, and \p{ASSIGNED} properties. Those are all mandatory but either completely missing or else fail to obey The Unicode Standard with respect to their definitions. This is also the problem with the POSIX compatible properties in Java: they’re all broken with respect to UTS#18.
Prior to JDK7, it is also missing the mandatory Script properties. JDK7 does get script properties at long last, but that’s all — nothing else. Java is still light years away from meeting even RL1.2a, which is a daily gotcha for zillions of programmers.
In JDK7, you can finally also two-part properties in the form \p{name=value} if they’re block, script, or general categories. That means these are all the same in JDK7’s Pattern class:
\p{Block=Number_Forms}, \p{blk=Number_Forms}, and \p{InNumber_Forms}.
\p{Script=Latin}, \p{sc=Latin}, \p{IsLatin}, and \p{Latin}.
\p{General_Category=Lu}, \p{GC=Lu}, and \p{Lu}.
However, you still cannot use the the long forms like \p{Lowercase_Letter} and \p{Letter_Number}, and the POSIX-looking properties are all broken from RL1.2a’s perspective. Plus super-basic properties from RL1.2 like \p{White_Space} and \p{Alphabetic} are still missing.
There was some talk of trying to fix \b and \B, which are miserably broken with respect to \w and \W, but I don't know how they’re going to fix all that without fully complying with RL1.2a. And no, I have no idea when they will add those basic properties to Java. You can’t get by without them, either.
To fully work with Unicode using regexes in Java at even Level 1, you really cannot use the standard Pattern class that Java comes with. The easiest way to do so is to instead use JNI to connect up with ICU regex libraries using the Google Android code, which is available.
There do exist other languages that are at least Level-1 compliant (or better) with UTS#18, but if you want to stay within Java, ICU is currently your own real option.
java has an method java.lang.Character.isUpperCase, its not exactly a regular expression, but might satisfy.
http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Character.html#isUpperCase(int)
We are often told that Regexps are slow and should be avoided whenever possible.
However, taking into account the overhead of doing some string manipulation oneself (not talking about algorithm mistakes - this is a different matter), especially in PHP or Perl (maybe Java) what is the limit, in which case can we consider string manipulation to be a better alternative? What regexps are particularly CPU greedy?
For instance, for the following, in C++, Java, PHP or Perl, what would you recommend
The regexps would probably be faster:
s/abc/def/g or a ... while((i=index("abc",$x)>=0) ...$y .= substr()... based solution?
s/(\d)+/N/g or a scanning algorithm
But what about
an email validation regexp?
s/((0|\w)+?[xy]*[^xy]){2,7}/u/g
wouldn't a handmade and specific algorithm be faster (while longer to write)?
edit
The point of the question is to determine what kind of regexp would better be rewritten specifically for a given problem via string manipulation?
edit2
A common implementation is Perl regexp. For instance in Perl - that requires to know how they are implemented - what kind of regexp is to be avoided, because the implementation will make the process lengthy and ineffective? It may not be a complex regexp...
edit July 2011 (based on comments)
I'm not saying all regexps are slow. Some particular regexps patterns are known to be slow, due to the particular processing their and due to their implementation.In recent Perl / PHP implementations for instance, what is known to be rather slow - and should be avoided?The answer is expected from people who did already their own research (profiler...) and who are able to provide a kind of general guidelines about what is recommended/to be avoided.
Who said regexes were slow? At least in Perl they tend to be the preferred method of manipulating strings.
Regexes are bad at some things like email validation because the subject is too complex, not because they are slow. A proper email validation regex is over 6,000 characters long, and it doesn't even handle all of the cases (you have to strip out comments first).
At least in Perl 5, if it has a grammar it probably shouldn't be parsed with one regex.
You should also rewrite a regex as a custom function if the regex has grown to the point it can no longer be easily maintained (see the previous email validation example) or profiling shows that the regex is the slow component of your code.
You seem to be concerned with the speed of the regex vs the custom algorithm, but that is not a valid concern until you prove that it is with a profiler. Write the code in the most maintainable way. If a regex is clear, then use a regex. If a custom algorithm is clear, then use a custom algorithm. If you find that either is eating up a lot of time after profiling your code, then start looking for alternatives.
A nice feature of manipulating text with regular expressions is that patterns are high-level and declarative. This leaves the implementation considerable room for optimization such as factoring out the longest common prefix or using Boyer-Moore for static strings. Concise notation makes for quicker reading by experts. I understand immediately what
if (s/^(.)//) {
...
}
is doing, and index($_, 0, 1) = "" looks noisy in comparison.
Rather than the lower bound, the important consideration for regular expressions is the upper bound. It's a powerful tool, so people believe it's capable of correctly extracting tokens from XML, email addresses, or C++ programs and don't realize that an even more powerful tool such as a parser is necessary.
Regular expressions will never be faster than a hand-made algorithm for a very specific purpose. Worse, in PHP they have to be compiled the first time they're used (a cache is used afterwards).
However, they are certainly more succinct. Moreover, writing custom algorithms is often slower than regexes because the regular expressions engine are usually implemented in a more low level language, with less overhead in calling functions, etc.
For instance, preg_replace('/a/', 'b', $string) will almost certainly be faster than looping in PHP through the string. But this is a constant penalty in execution time and sometimes regular expressions, due to backtracking, can have a much worse asymptotic behavior.
You are strongly encouraged to know how regular expressions are implemented so that you can know when you're writing inefficient ones.
Some regular expressions are extremely fast and the difference between the regex and a custom solution may be negligible (or not worth anyone's time to bother).
The cases where regular expressions are slow, however, is when excessive backtracking occurs. Regular expressions parse from left to right and have the potential to match text in more than one way. So if they reach a point where the engine realizes that the pattern isn't going to match your test string, then it may start over and try to match in another way. This repeated backtracking adds up and slows down the algorithm.
Often the regular expression can be rewritten to perform better. But the ultimate in performance would be to write your own optimized parser for the specific task. By writing your own parser you can for example parse from left to right while maintaining a memory (or state). If you use this technique in procedural code you can often achieve the effect you're looking for in one pass and without the slowness of backtracking.
I was faced with this decision earlier this year. In fact the task at hand was on the outer fringe of what was even possible with regular expressions. In the end I decided to write my own parser, an embedded pushdown automaton, which is incredibly efficient for what I was trying to do. The task, by the way, was to build something that can parse regular expressions and provide Intellisense-like code hinting for them.
It's somewhat ironic that I didn't use regular expressions to parse regular expressions, but you can read about the thought behind it all here...
http://blog.regexhero.net/2010/03/code-hinting-for-regular-expressions.html
what kind of regexp would better be rewritten specifically for a given problem via string manipulation?
Easy.
Determine if you ever need to rewrite anything.
(positive answer would be for about 1 per 10000 scripts, massive text parsing, resource critical)
Do profile possible solutions.
Use one suits you for a given problem
As for the rest 9999 cases do not waste your time with such a trifle problem and use whatever you like more.
Every time you ask yourself such a question, it is extremely useful to remind yourself that by default all your extra-optimized and super-fast code being parsed char by char on every user request. No brain-cracking regexps, no devious string manipulation, but just old good picking chars one by one.
Regexes aren't slow. But implementation can be slow, mostly because it is often interpreted and build again each time when they are used. But good regexp library allows you to use compiled versions. They are pretty fast.
I was wondering if there are any general guidelines for when to use regex VS "string".contains("anotherString") and/or other String API calls?
While above given decision for .contains() is trivial (why bother with regex if you can do this in a single call), real life brings more complex choices to make. For example, is it better to do two .contains() calls or a single regex?
My rule of thumb was to always use regex, unless this can be replaced with a single API call. This prevents code against bloating, but is probably not so good from code readability point of view, especially if regex tends to get big.
Another, often overlooked, argument is performance. How do I know how many iterations (as in "Big O") does this regex require? Would it be faster than sheer iteration? Somehow everybody assumes that once regex looks shorter than 5 if statements, it must be quicker. But is this always the case? This is especially relevant if regex cannot be pre-compiled in advance.
RegexBuddy has a built-in regular expressions debugger. It shows how many steps the regular expression engine needed to find a match or to fail to find a match. By using the debugger on strings of different lengths, you can get an idea of the complexity (big O) of the regular expression. If you look up "benchmark" in the index of RegexBuddy's help file you'll get some more tips on how to interpret this.
When judging the performance of a regular expression, it is particularly important to test situations where the regex fails to find a match. It is very easy to write a regular expression that finds its matches in linear time, but fails in exponential time in a situation that I call catastrophic backtracking.
To use your 5 if statements as an example, the regex one|two|three|four|five scans the input string once, doing a little bit of extra work when an o, t, or f is encountered. But 5 if statements checking if the string contains a word will search the entire string 5 times if none of the words can be found. If five occurs at the start of the string, then the regex finds the match instantly, while the first 4 if statements scan the whole string in vain before the 5th if statement finds the match.
It's hard to estimate performance without using a profiler, generally the best strategy is to write what makes the most logical sense and is easier to understand/read. If two .contains() calls are easier to logically understand then that's the better route, the same logic applies if a regex makes more sense.
It's also important to consider that other developers on your team may not have a great understanding of regex. If at a later time in production the use of regex over .contains() (or vice versa) is identified as a bottleneck, try and profile both.
Rule of thumb: Write code to be readable, use a profiler to identify bottlenecks and only then replace the readable code with faster code.
I would strongly suggest that you write the code for both and time it. It's pretty simple to do this and you'll get an answers that is not a generic "rule of thumb" but instead a very specific answer that holds for your problem domain.
Vance Morrison has an excellent post about micro benchmarking, and has a tool that makes it really simple for you to answer questions like this...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc500596.aspx
If you want my personal "rule of thumb" then it's that RegEx is often slower for this sort of thing, but you should ignore me and measure it yourself :-)
If, for non-performance reasons, you continue to use Regular Expressions then I can really recommend two things. Get a profiler (such as ANTS) and see what your code does in production. Then, get a copy of the Regular Expression Cookbook...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Regular-Expressions-Cookbook-Jan-Goyvaerts/dp/0596520689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259147763&sr=8-1
... as it has loads of tips on speeding up RegEx code. I've optimized RegEx code by a factor of 10 following tips from this book.
The answer (as usual) is that it depends.
In your particular case, I guess the alternative would be to do the regex "this|that" and then do a find. This particular construct really pokes at regex's weaknesses. The "OR" in this case doesn't really know what the sub-patterns are trying to do and so can't easily optimize. It ends up doing the equivalent of (in pseudo code):
for( i = 0; i < stringLength; i++ ) {
if( stringAt pos i starts with "this" )
found!
if( stringAt pos i starts with "that" )
found!
}
There almost isn't a slower way to do it. In this case, two contains() calls will be much faster.
On the other hand, a full match on: ".*this.*|.*that.*" may optimize better.
To me, regex should be used when the code to do otherwise is complicated or unwieldy. So if you want to find one of two or three strings in a target string then just use contains. But if you wanted to find words starting with 'A' or 'B' and ending in 'g'-'m'... then use regex.
And then you won't be so worried about a few cycles here and there.