W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 1996

Re: URL parsing and IPv6 addresses

From: Paul Francis <francis@cactus.slab.ntt.jp>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 96 13:25:13 JST
Message-Id: <9608060425.AA26677@cactus.slab.ntt.jp>
To: bookwyrm@agii.solluna.org, www-talk@w3.org
>    In the course of adding some experimental IPv6 support to my system,
>  include the WWW software on my system, I ran across an issue in parsing
>  IPv6 addresses and URLs, and am looking for documents, if existing, to
>  resolve the issue.

This is an interesting issue.  I recommend you that you copy your
original message to the ipng group (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com).
I'm not sure if this is a URL problem or an IPng problem, but
I doubt that the syntax ambiguity issue you bring up is unique
to URLs.  In any event, the IPng people should be aware of it,
and should probably themselves specify a way to append the port
number to their construct.

Having had a bit of experience with IPng back in the old days,
I suspect that the desire of the IPng folk for the shorthand
notation is primarily to make writing down multicast
addresses easier.  I personally don't think that there will be
many unicast addresses that have a lot of 0's in them, so the
savings in the shorthand notation won't be so much.  As such,
my personal inclination would be to disallow the shorthand notation
when used in a URL.  But then, I suppose that would be going
against the IPng standard, so is likely to cause other problems...

Received on Tuesday, 6 August 1996 00:25:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 20 January 2020 16:08:20 UTC