- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:39:49 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > >> > >> But there is no <hostport> in STD 66 outside of appendix D.2 about > >> obsolete terminology. > > > > Please follow the link given in that section to find the definition of > > <hostport>. > > I did, but I'm not going to try it again now, many HTML5 links lead to a > monstrous "editor's copy", where "bastard browser from hell" stopped > loading before the relevant section. Ok, well, whenever you get around to it please do let me know if there are any issues that need resolving in that section. > I can't tell if the default port is always clear for various old and/or > obscure schemes. The default port numbers are all here: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers Having said that, it isn't clear what browsers should do with URLs of schemes they don't know (say, x-foo-bar://...). I should test that and make sure it's covered. Filed bug 5859 about that. Thanks. > >> port = *DIGIT, WTH is an empty port introduced by a colon ? > > > > I don't understand this paragraph. > > *DIGIT means "zero or more digits", and "zero digits" gives you an empty > <port> after the colon in your <hostport>. I've no clue what an empty > <port> is. Your draft discusses other potential issues, ending up with > port 0 in these cases. FWIW, port 0 is reserved. I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Could you give a code example that illustrates the case you're concerned about? > Maybe, but there is yet no section 5.9.8 in the public version that BBFH > can load. What is BBFH? Which version of the spec are you reading that it doesn't have a section 5.9.8? I'm confused. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2008 02:40:28 UTC