On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Ryan Sleevi sle...@google.com wrote:
[...] All
the forms except for decimal octets are seen as non-standard (despite
being quite widely interoperable) and undesirable.
They are no longer non-standard, though still non-conforming. Or, in
other words,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:46 AM, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
The trailing dot actually had meaning, but in my periodic testing most
commerce websites didn't handle it well. It didn't help that browsers never
favored adding it.
On a somewhat (user) hostile network, http://discover.com/
The trailing dot actually had meaning, but in my periodic testing most
commerce websites didn't handle it well. It didn't help that browsers never
favored adding it.
On a somewhat (user) hostile network, http://discover.com/ might go to
http://discover.com.example.com/ this probably isn't what
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Tim Streater t...@clothears.org.uk wrote:
On 24 Jun 2015 at 20:15, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
1.66 = 1.0.0.66
1.256 = 1.0.1.0
1.2.66 = 1.2.0.66
1.256.66 = invalid
This makes no sense at all.
On 24 Jun 2015 at 20:15, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
How Chrome's omnibox handles this (which I think is compliant with most
other places):
If there are no dots in the middle of the expression, the number is
converted to powers-of-256 format and leading 0s are prepended to
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:46 AM, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
Also fun and probably worth documenting is how http://127.1/ and
http://127.2.1/ are parsed. I doubt the average developer knows (unless they
specifically deal with low level networking).
The question is whether the parsing
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:46 AM, timeless timel...@gmail.com wrote:
You have http://0.0.0.66/ that's not a match for your example...
I'm not sure what you mean here.
You swap between 0.0.0.66 and 66.0.0.0 in your OP.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
You swap between 0.0.0.66 and 66.0.0.0 in your OP.
Actually, the input URL in that case is different. 0x42.0. != 0x42.
Well *that's*
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
You swap between 0.0.0.66 and 66.0.0.0 in your OP.
Actually, the input URL in that case is different. 0x42.0. != 0x42.
--
https://annevankesteren.nl/
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com
wrote:
You swap between 0.0.0.66 and 66.0.0.0 in your OP.
I've done some research into how Chrome parses IPv4 addresses to see
if that's worth standardizing.
Most browsers do not have special parsing rules for IPv4 vs domain
names. That is, they pass the domain name to the network layer and
let that figure out what should happen. Typically, that results
11 matches
Mail list logo
