3 ms·
It's sad they're going to "fix" this. From the comments, it seems the only reason to support navigating to 0.0.0.0 is because some people got used to using that
by Potando 12y ago
It's sad they're going to "fix" this. From the comments, it seems the only reason to support navigating to 0.0.0.0 is because some people got used to using that and they're getting confused or don't want to change their habits. This is the kind of accumulating crud that makes web browsers the ugly monsters they are, but it's not even of the important type like supporting non-standards-compliant websites. Imagine how the world would be a slightly better place if the Chrome guys asked Firefox etc to stop supporting 0.0.0.0 too, then people will stop blaming the browser and change their behavior.
- ambrop7 12y agoThis has nothing to do with "accumulating crud", it's a trivial thing, there's probably less code needed to not treat 0.0.0.0 differently. Also, the amount of people who have ever typed 0.0.0.0 into a browser is so small that it is virtually irrelevant what they do, and whether there is consistency between browsers.
- belovedeagle 12y agoBut this is treating 0.0.0.0 differently. Did you not read the bug report, or the comments here, or anything? 0.0.0.0 is not a valid address. In fact, navigating to 127.0.0.1 when 0.0.0.0 is given in the URL is neither expected nor desirable.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Phil_Latio 12y agoNo, it's the right thing to do. If a large amount of users depend on a behavior, then you don't break it for a lousy "the specs says so" reason.