Brion Vibber wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Conrad Irwin <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Out of interest, do you know what percentage of emails in the database >> don't validate under the new scheme? >> > > That's actually a wise thing to check -- most fails will probably be > legitimately bogus entries, but if we can find any that don't validate but > *do* work (eg they've been confirmed as functional) that's info we need to > report upstream as well -- the new code is using the specs for HTML 5's > client-side form validation, which is starting to go into the latest > generation of browsers. > > In theory the validation rules should be pretty liberal, and you should need > to do something very esoteric to not pass. (The old validation regexes from > ~2004-2005 got kicked out for failing to deal with things like '+' which > turned out to be more common than we thought.) > > Folks actually already pushed a fix upstream to the whatwg spec page to > allow single-part domains like 'localhost', needed for local-network testing > and perhaps some weird intranet setups. > > -- brion
The original spec had feedback based precisely on enwiki numbers. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-August/022220.html So about 100? Note that there are invalid addresses marked as confirmed in wikipedia. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
