W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2004

Re: localhost

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:06:30 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040216175930.01f8e520@127.0.0.1>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, uri@w3.org

At 12:22 16/02/04 -0500, Martin Duerst wrote:

>Hello Adam, Roy,
>
>- I think the 'localhost' convention should only apply to reg-names that
>   are domain/host names. I think it's inappropriate to impose this
>   convention on other registry names; they may have completely different
>   needs (i.e. not actually refering to machines,...) or syntax
>   (e.g. numerical,...).

I noticed this too, and feel similarly (but not very strongly).  I would 
expect the "localhost" convention to be scheme-specific rather than 
applicable to all URIs.

But there is a related question to which I think the answer should be clear:

Is it ever OK to rewrite
   scheme:///foo
as
   scheme:/foo
?

I think, and this was reinforced by the documented "localhost" convention, 
that the answer is "no".

>- On the other hand, 'localhost' should work for all dns-based schemes.

I'm less convinced of this point.  If it does work for all DNS-based 
schemes (or Internet hostname based schemes), I think that's a feature of 
Internet host naming, not of URIs.

>   "Individual URI schemes can require support for this custom." may
>   suggest otherwise.
>
>- For the exact details, I don't really think it matters that much
>   whether 'localhost' is resolved by lookup or otherwise.

#g
--



------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 13:18:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC