W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 1996

Re: URL parsing and IPv6 addresses

From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 96 08:54:00 PDT
To: www-talk <www-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <32076AE5@MSMAIL.INDY.TCE.COM>

Paul Francis writes in <9608060425.AA26677@cactus.slab.ntt.jp>:
>Having had a bit of experience with IPng back in the old days,
>I suspect that the desire of the IPng folk for the shorthand
>notation is primarily to make writing down multicast
>addresses easier.  I personally don't think that there will be
>many unicast addresses that have a lot of 0's in them, so the
>savings in the shorthand notation won't be so much.  As such,
>my personal inclination would be to disallow the shorthand notation
>when used in a URL.  But then, I suppose that would be going
>against the IPng standard, so is likely to cause other problems...

A partial solution could be to allow the shorthand notation if the URL is 
for the standard port 80, but that the full notation must be used if a port 
other than 80 is used.  Still against the IPng standard, though (just less 
against it).
======================================================================
Mark Leighton Fisher                   Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com                   Indianapolis, IN
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 1996 09:55:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:19 GMT