[10181] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: URL parsing and IPv6 addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fisher Mark)
Tue Aug 6 10:00:48 1996
From: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
To: www-talk <www-talk@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 96 08:54:00 PDT
Resent-From: www-talk@w3.org
Paul Francis writes in <9608060425.AA26677@cactus.slab.ntt.jp>:
>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...
A partial solution could be to allow the shorthand notation if the URL is
for the standard port 80, but that the full notation must be used if a port
other than 80 is used. Still against the IPng standard, though (just less
against it).
======================================================================
Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics
fisherm@indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN
