News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on In search of the perfect URL validation regex.

Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by lucb1e on Sunday June 22, 2014 @05:43PM (#7929333)
What's wrong with IP-address URLs? If they are invalid because it says so in some RFC, this is still not the ultimate regex. If you redirect a browser to http://192.168.1.1 it works perfectly fine.

And why must the root period behind the domain be omitted from URLs? Not only does it work in a browser (and people end sentences with periods), the domain should actually end in a period all the time but it's usually omitted for ease of use. Only some DNS applications still require domains to end with root dots.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by mcpherrinm on Sunday June 22, 2014 @05:47PM (#7929342)
This is the context of a URL shortener, and one of the goals seems to prohibit bad IPs, not all IPs. Bad seems to be defined here as ones in the private IP spaces, and those in multicast space, etc.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by lucb1e on Sunday June 22, 2014 @06:08PM (#7929393)
Okay, that makes sense!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:In search of the perfect URL validation regex by gamegoblin on Sunday June 22, 2014 @06:15PM (#7929410)
According to the RFC, since domains are allowed to be entirely numeric, there is overlap between valid domains and valid IP addresses. The RFC says that if something could be a valid IP address, it is to be thought of as an IP address.
[ Parent | on HN ]