Section 4.10.4.1.5 defines a valid e-mail address as follows:
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]
This is much more restrictive than the full range of e-mail addresses
2009/8/23 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com:
Or just don't ban anything
at all, like with type=tel. type=email differs from most of the other
types with validity constraints (like month, number, etc.) in that the
difference between valid and invalid values is a purely pragmatic
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively, you could just loosen the restrictions even further,
and only ban input that doesn't contain an @ sign. (Or that doesn't
match ^...@]+@[...@]+\.[^@]+$, or whatever.) Or just don't ban anything
at all,
Thanks for doing this work, Aryeh! It's really awesome!
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Aryeh Gregorsimetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
Beyond that, although it's safe to say that quoted-string or
domain-literal or even entirely invalid addresses are extraordinarily
rare, there are *some* real
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless you avoid validating *entirely*, there's virtually always going
to be some subset of theoretically valid addresses that you'll flag as
invalid, though.
There shouldn't be, IMO, if the browser is forbidden to
