Re: Email type

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:38:06 +0200, Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>  
wrote:

> For reference, I just found:
>
>    http://isemail.info/
>
> The "About" page is worth reading:
>
>    http://isemail.info/about
>
> The implementation is in PHP:
>
>    https://github.com/dominicsayers/isemail


What a nightmare!

Steven

>
> Somebody created a JavaScript version of this:
>
>    https://github.com/hapijs/isemail
>
> It seems like this uses its own parser rather than a regexp:
>
>    https://github.com/hapijs/isemail/blob/master/lib/index.js
>
> In any case, it seems like serious work, but I don't know how that  
> compares with the simpler validator from Apache Commons.
>
> -Erik
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Alain Couthures  
> <alain.couthures@agencexml.com> wrote:
>> For RFCs support, there might be a dedicated namespace for  
>> corresponding types. That is what I have recently implemented in my own  
>> XQuery engine for types such as >>"ietf:email", "ietf:ipv4",  
>> "ietf:mac", "ietf:port",...
>>
>> Specifically for email addresses, it is, at least, programmatically  
>> possible to check if the domain part is an effective mail server (a DNS  
>> request for an MX record). More >>likely, we want an existing email  
>> address than a one to be created for a domain to be created too!
>>
>> It is, of course, a good idea to define our own "xf:email" type for a  
>> more commonly-used regular expression.
>>
>> --Alain
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 24/06/2017 à 00:57, Erik Bruchez a écrit :
>>> Validation schemes coming from specifications such as RFCs might be  
>>> correct, but they are not very useful to end users.
>>>
>>> It is true that some web sites/web apps reject email address which are  
>>> definitely valid in practice (I remember the rejection of the "+"  
>>> character in emails such >>>as `erik+test@example.org` by some sites).
>>>
>>> But, witness Steven's example: it is technically true that  
>>> `steven@cwi` is correct, yet there are virtually zero users in  
>>> practice for whom that >>>kind of email address will not be an actual  
>>> error.
>>>
>>>>>> So there is some tension here which is hard to solve: you don't  
>>>>>> want to block users, but you also want validation to catch likely  
>>>>>> errors.
>>>
>>> A possible way around this could be to have two kinds of email  
>>> validations:
>>>
>>> 1. per RFC, which would catch a wide net and accept `steven@cwi` and  
>>> other rare-in-practice addresses
>>> 2. practical, which would reject `steven@cwi` and other funny cases
>>>
>>> This would work better if XForms had a concept of "warning" validation  
>>> (which our implementation supports): you could have a hard validation  
>>> catching certainly >>>incorrect addresses and soft/warning validation  
>>> for the narrower validation. This would allow a determined user to  
>>> enter a likely incorrect email address if she >>>is sure that it is  
>>> correct, after accepting the warning. A form author could choose how  
>>> to deal with the various options of email validation.
>>>
>>> -Erik
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 13:28 +0200, Steven Pemberton wrote:
>>>>> Our definition of email accepts the following as a valid email
>>>>> address:
>>>>>
>>>>>       steven@cwi
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we OK with that? I'd expect at least one "." after the @.
>>>>
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-2.3.11
>>>> has:
>>>> [[
>>>> A domain name (or often just a "domain") consists of one or more
>>>>   components, separated by dots if more than one appears.
>>>> ]]
>>>>
>>>> so steven@cwi should be allowed.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
>>>> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>>>
>>>> Web slave for www.fromoldbooks.org