- From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:06:40 -0700
- 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. PK
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 11:07:07 UTC