On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:19:55 +0200, TAMURA, Kent tk...@chromium.org wrote:
I'd like stricter rule for it. e.g.
dot-atom-text @ 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT) 1*(. 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT))
That does not work with IDNs.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Anne van Kesterenann...@opera.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:19:55 +0200, TAMURA, Kent tk...@chromium.org wrote:
I'd like stricter rule for it. e.g.
dot-atom-text @ 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT) 1*(. 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT))
That does not work with IDNs.
Nor does the
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:19:42 +0200, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
Nor does the current spec, but it only restricts what the UA actually
submits, not what it accepts from the user.
Ah, that makes sense.
The spec suggests that
UAs convert IDNs to punycode for submission, which
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#e-mail-state
A valid e-mail address is a string that matches the production
dot-atom-text @ dot-atom-text
where dot-atom-text is defined in RFC 5322 section 3.2.3.
[RFC5322]http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#refsRFC5322
I'd
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:19 PM, TAMURA, Kent tk...@chromium.org wrote:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#e-mail-state
A valid e-mail address is a string that matches the production
dot-atom-text @ dot-atom-text
where dot-atom-text is defined in RFC 5322 section 3.2.3.
