W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2015

Re: [whatwg] IPv4 parsing

From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:06:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAHOzFCqFP_TzG73Ptcp-sM2SyFCzX8_4Y_k-iZJ8mJaj1DJzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, David Walp <David.Walp@microsoft.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, Valentin Gosu <valentin.gosu@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 3:46 AM, timeless <timeless@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/ might go to
> http://discover.com.example.com/ this probably isn't what the user wanted
> (it certainly wasn't what I wanted when I tested), but using
> http://discover.com./ got unfortunate redirects or unhappy responses from
> the remote server.

That's all relevant for trailing dots on hostnames; I think the context
here is trailing dots on IP addresses, which I don't think have the same
meaning, since "force this to be treated as a FQDN" doesn't really mean
anything when you're not doing DNS resolution.  I believe for non-IP
hostnames, Chrome should be respecting the trailing dot.

For IPs, losing the trailing dot seems OK to me.

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 11:07:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:33 UTC