Re: [whatwg/fetch] HTTPS upgrades proposal (PR #1655)

@annevk commented on this pull request.



>  
+   <li><p><var>request</var>'s <a for="request">URL</a>'s <a for="url">scheme</a> is not
+   "<code>http</code>"
+
+   <li>
+    <p><var>request</var>'s <a for="request">URL</a>'s <a for="url">host</a> is exempted from
+    upgrades in an <a>implementation-defined</a> way.
+
+    <p class=example id="example-https-upgrades-exempted-hosts">If <a for=url>host</a> is a
+    non-registrable or non-assignable domain name such as .local or an IP address that falls in a
+    range reserved for non-publicly routable networks, the implementation might return without
+    modifying <var>request</var>.

I think my intuition would be more that we try to define the concept, as Mike West suggested. I would be okay with a follow-up issue that we highlight in the specification. (There should be some class=XXX already of that nature which you could imitate.)

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/pull/1655#discussion_r1339944687
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/fetch/pull/1655/review/1648497349@github.com>