Using regular expressions to parse HTML: why not?

Entire HTML parsing is not possible with regular expressions, since it depends on matching the opening and the closing tag which is not possible with regexps.

Regular expressions can only match regular languages but HTML is a context-free language and not a regular language (As @StefanPochmann pointed out, regular languages are also context-free, so context-free doesn't necessarily mean not regular). The only thing you can do with regexps on HTML is heuristics but that will not work on every condition. It should be possible to present a HTML file that will be matched wrongly by any regular expression.

For quick´n´dirty regexp will do fine. But the fundamental thing to know is that it is impossible to construct a regexp that will correctly parse HTML.

The reason is that regexps can’t handle arbitarly nested expressions. See Can regular expressions be used to match nested patterns?

Two quick reasons:

• writing a regex that can stand up to malicious input is hard; way harder than using a prebuilt tool
• writing a regex that can work with the ridiculous markup that you will inevitably be stuck with is hard; way harder than using a prebuilt tool

Regarding the suitability of regexes for parsing in general: they aren't suitable. Have you ever seen the sorts of regexes you would need to parse most languages?

As far as parsing goes, regular expressions can be useful in the "lexical analysis" (lexer) stage, where the input is broken down into tokens. It's less useful in the actual "build a parse tree" stage.

For an HTML parser, I'd expect it to only accept well-formed HTML and that requires capabilities outside what a regular expression can do (they cannot "count" and make sure that a given number of opening elements are balanced by the same number of closing elements).

Because there are many ways to "screw up" HTML that browsers will treat in a rather liberal way but it would take quite some effort to reproduce the browser's liberal behaviour to cover all cases with regular expressions, so your regex will inevitably fail on some special cases, and that would possibly introduce serious security gaps in your system.

The problem is that most users who ask a question that has to do with HTML and regex do this because they can't find an own regex that works. Then one has to think whether everything would be easier when using a DOM or SAX parser or something similar. They are optimized and constructed for the purpose of working with XML-like document structures.

Sure, there are problems that can be solved easily with regular expressions. But the emphasis lies on easily.

If you just want to find all URLs that look like http://.../ you're fine with regexps. But if you want to find all URLs that are in a a-Element that has the class 'mylink' you probably better use a appropriate parser.

Regular expressions were not designed to handle a nested tag structure, and it is at best complicated (at worst, impossible) to handle all the possible edge cases you get with real HTML.

I believe that the answer lies in computation theory. For a language to be parsed using regex it must be by definition "regular" (link). HTML is not a regular language as it does not meet a number of criteria for a regular language (much to do with the many levels of nesting inherent in html code). If you are interested in the theory of computation I would recommend this book.

This expression retrieves attributes from HTML elements. It supports:

• unquoted / quoted attributes,
• single / double quotes,
• escaped quotes inside attributes,
• spaces around equals signs,
• any number of attributes,
• check only for attributes inside tags,
• escape comments, and
• manage different quotes within an attribute value.

(?:\<\!\-\-(?:(?!\-\-\>)\r\n?|\n|.)*?-\-\>)|(?:<(\S+)\s+(?=.*>)|(?<=[=\s])\G)(?:((?:(?!\s|=).)*)\s*?=\s*?[\"']?((?:(?<=\")(?:(?<=\\)\"|[^\"])*|(?<=')(?:(?<=\\)'|[^'])*)|(?:(?!\"|')(?:(?!\/>|>|\s).)+))[\"']?\s*)

Check it out. It works better with the "gisx" flags, as in the demo.

"It depends" though. It's true that regexes don't and can't parse HTML with true accuracy, for all the reasons given here. If, however, the consequences of getting it wrong (such as not handling nested tags) are minor, and if regexes are super-convenient in your environment (such as when you're hacking Perl), go ahead.

Suppose you're, oh, maybe parsing web pages that link to your site--perhaps you found them with a Google link search--and you want a quick way to get a general idea of the context surround your link. You're trying to run a little report that might alert you to link spam, something like that.

In that case, misparsing some of the documents isn't going to be a big deal. Nobody but you will see the mistakes, and if you're very lucky there will be few enough that you can follow up individually.

I guess I'm saying it's a tradeoff. Sometimes implementing or using a correct parser--as easy as that may be--might not be worth the trouble if accuracy isn't critical.

Just be careful with your assumptions. I can think of a few ways the regexp shortcut can backfire if you're trying to parse something that will be shown in public, for example.

Regular expressions are not powerful enough for such a language like HTML. Sure, there are some examples where you can use regular expressions. But in general it is not appropriate for parsing.