keykey | Create a key - value mirror | Keyboard library

In your kv, change the rule for the Button to include:

A simple HTTP-compatible server is just a few steps ahead of a binary socket server. You're already writing a response to the client. If the first line of the response follows the HTTP standard, a browser will be able to display it.

To illustrate, here are a few lines of code from one of my recent projects.

Traditionally, in C, an integer value of 0 stands for false and 1 stands for true and OpenSSL follows that convention. See this section of the Wikipedia page about the Boolean data type for some context:

Initial implementations of the language C (1972) provided no Boolean type, and to this day Boolean values are commonly represented by integers (ints) in C programs. The comparison operators (>, ==, etc.) are defined to return a signed integer (int) result, either 0 (for false) or 1 (for true).

This has changed somewhat with the introduction of the _Bool type in C99 but the initial implementation OpenSSL predates that -- hence the use of the integer values of 0 and 1. Also, in some cases OpenSSL functions use different integer values to indicate different types of results.

The SO answer on return values that you have pointed to is specifically about the special case of the exit value of a process, to be returned to its parent. Indeed, for that particular situation a value of zero indicates success. But that is not a typical approach applied to function return values in general.

You can either call tableView.reloadData() right after setting your posts variable (like you have commented out), or you can put a didSet observer on your posts variable and reload your tableView after it's set. If you go with that second option you'll want to restructure your parser to set the posts only once, rather than appending items one at a time. That would look something like this:

You ask:

is there a way to produce a true Unicode case-folded normalized form in this context, subject to the limitations I presented?

If by "true Unicode case-folded normalized form" you mean the result of applying the Unicode Case_Folding() mapping to the string, I think the answer is (probably) "no", and this is why.

For the approach you are using, you need a function (or as in your example a composition of functions) you can call in the assertion. So it should be possible to get a true case-folded form if and only if there is a simple composition of built-in functions you can call to produce it.

If Case_Folding were just a matter of substituting new characters for old, one could in theory handle it with a call to translate(), but the argument strings would be unmanageable. But Case_Folding maps (if I have understood the document you point to correctly) some characters to strings (and/or some strings to strings), which puts it out of reach for translate().

Without going entry by entry through the case-folding and lower-casing entries in the Unicode character database, I don't know that it's possible to prove for certain that it cannot be done. (Perhaps a call to lower-case() followed by judicious use of replace() would do the trick -- but I would expect it to be too unwieldy.

One could of course write an XQuery or XSLT function to do the case-folding operation (as opposed to lower-casing and upper-casing). But there is no way to declare a function within an XSD assertion.

If you can find an XSD schema validator willing to accept XPath 3.0 instead of 2.0, then writing your own function would be theoretically possible. But again it would be cumbersome unless you could offload as many of the details as possible to an XML representation of the Unicode database, which means it will work only if the XSD processor is willing to evaluate calls to doc().

So in practice I think the answer is no, unless you are willing to go to unusual lengths to make it happen and also have some luck.

do I actually need that? If the form tested by the assertion in my schema serves as a basis for caseless matching behavior that always produces the same results as Unicode's standard canonical caseless matching algorithm, then I can live with what I've got.

I think here, too, the answer is "no". The fourth paragraph of the section "Default Case Folding" at the URI you point to reads:

Any two strings which are considered to be case variants of each other under any of the full case conversions, toUppercase(X), toLowercase(X), or toTitlecase(X) will fold to the same string by the toCasefold(X) operation

Since the XPath lower-case() function is specified as implementing the Unicode lower-case mapping, I think that gives you the result that any strings S1 and S2 for which lower-case($S1) eq lower-case($S2) will be equal under the Unicode toCasefold() operation. The wording of the paragraph in Unicode leaves open the possibility that some strings which are not case variants of each other will also fold to the same string under toCasefold(), but I hope all they mean is that case folding affects normalization as well as casing. If so, then I think your call to unicode-normalize() will handle those cases. (If there are other pairs of strings for which toCasefold() returns equal values, but unicode-normalize(lower-case()) does not, then your assertion will fail to accept some pairs you would prefer to accept. But what would those pairs of strings be?)

This answer is less crisp than I wish I could make it, and I doubt I've told you anything you don't already know. Without more time for research in the Unicode database than I have time for, I don't think a more definitive answer is likely to be possible. But if you were mostly hoping for an independent observer to confirm that you seem to be on the right track, I can certainly do that. Good work! And good luck!

You are using $('td[id^="USERvalue"]').text() like a single element. But in real case it is returning multiple elements, So if you want text of all td then you have to process them in loop and you have to contain text in single variable which will be appended each time. for example:

elements do not have a value. Try using the innerHTML attribute instead.