3 ms·

The trailing dot makes it an invalid URL, which defines hostname as *[ domainlabel "." ] toplabel. "b--c" seems to be a valid domainlabel, though, so I'm not s

The trailing dot makes it an invalid URL, which defines hostname as *[ domainlabel "." ] toplabel. "b--c" seems to be a valid domainlabel, though, so I'm not sure why it's on there.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
thwarted 12y ago
The trailing dot makes it an invalid URL, which defines hostname as ∗[ domainlabel "." ] toplabel. RFC2396§3.2.2 defines hostname as: hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ] RFC3986 which obsoletes RFC2396, seems to make fewer claims about the authority section, and specifically says in Appendix D.2 that the toplabel rule has been removed.
LukeShu 12y ago
> The trailing dot makes it an invalid URL, which defines hostname as * [ domainlabel "." ] toplabel. I disagree. But, this is a tricky one. The relevant specs are: Spec | | Validity | Definition URL (RFC1738) | obsolete | invalid | hostname = *[ domainlabel "." ] toplabel HTTP/1.0 (RFC1945) | current | invalid | host = <A legal Internet host domain name | | | or IP address (in dotted-decimal form), | | | as defined by Section 2.1 of RFC 1123> HTTP/1.1 (RFC2068) | obsolete | invalid | ; same as RFC1945 HTTP/1.1 (RFC2616) | obsolete | valid | hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ] URI (RFC3986) | current | valid | host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name | | | reg-name = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims ) HTTP/1.1 (RFC7230) | current | valid | uri-host = <host, see [RFC3986], Section 3.2.2> The only way that URL is invalid is if we are in a strict HTTP/1.0 context. As a note about RFC1738 being obsolete: these days a URL is just a URI (1) whose scheme specifies it as a URL scheme, and (2) is valid according to the scheme specification. As the given URL is a valid URI, and is valid according to the current http URL scheme specification (RFC7230), that URL is valid.
- mathias 12y ago
  You forgot the most relevant spec, the URL Standard: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ http://url.spec.whatwg.org/

The trailing dot makes it an invalid URL, which defines hostname as *[ domainlabel "." ] toplabel. "b--c" seems to be a valid domainlabel, though, so I'm not sure why it's on there.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

thwarted 12y ago

The trailing dot makes it an invalid URL, which defines hostname as ∗[ domainlabel "." ] toplabel. RFC2396§3.2.2 defines hostname as: hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ] RFC3986 which obsoletes RFC2396, seems to make fewer claims about the authority section, and specifically says in Appendix D.2 that the toplabel rule has been removed.

LukeShu 12y ago

> The trailing dot makes it an invalid URL, which defines hostname as * [ domainlabel "." ] toplabel. I disagree. But, this is a tricky one. The relevant specs are: Spec | | Validity | Definition URL (RFC1738) | obsolete | invalid | hostname = *[ domainlabel "." ] toplabel HTTP/1.0 (RFC1945) | current | invalid | host = <A legal Internet host domain name | | | or IP address (in dotted-decimal form), | | | as defined by Section 2.1 of RFC 1123> HTTP/1.1 (RFC2068) | obsolete | invalid | ; same as RFC1945 HTTP/1.1 (RFC2616) | obsolete | valid | hostname = *( domainlabel "." ) toplabel [ "." ] URI (RFC3986) | current | valid | host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name | | | reg-name = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims ) HTTP/1.1 (RFC7230) | current | valid | uri-host = <host, see [RFC3986], Section 3.2.2> The only way that URL is invalid is if we are in a strict HTTP/1.0 context. As a note about RFC1738 being obsolete: these days a URL is just a URI (1) whose scheme specifies it as a URL scheme, and (2) is valid according to the scheme specification. As the given URL is a valid URI, and is valid according to the current http URL scheme specification (RFC7230), that URL is valid.

mathias 12y ago
You forgot the most relevant spec, the URL Standard: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/ http://url.spec.whatwg.org/