David Clipsham

In latest container signature there are positive choices, e.g. [22 27], & ranges [00:FF] but no inversions

there is mixed use of range syntax though, e.g. both [00:FF] and [01-04] are present, as are ASCII ['6'-'7']

yes that specific one is expressing either 0x22 or 0x27 so either ASCII ' or " - in a binary sig we express that (22|27) and this is most commonly...

well for binary sigs that pronom syntax is precompiled into separate subsequences in the XML, but looking again you're absolutely right - container ID 3120 includes (00|01).

its the wildcard syntax it can't deal with e.g {0-4}

Cool. I'll work through the container sigs as they are then and correct [xx xx] to (xx|xx) and [xx-xx] sequences to [xx:xx] ones for submission to the next release. cc...

Just to flag, although it was a little before my time as researcher, I interpret the intent of [!FEFF] to be 'a 16 bit byte value that does not equal...

actually on further reflection 'FE[!FF]' wouldnt work...neither would '??[!FF]' - hmm

honestly I think [!FEFF] is the best and correct way to express that

very cool, thanks for the background Matt. The signature description tells us the intent: 'wformat Tag not equal to decimal 65534' - https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/PRONOM/Format/proFormatSearch.aspx?status=detailReport&id=785&strPageToDisplay=signatures Of course 65534 is 0xFFFE so I...