[whatwg] type=email validation is too loose for practical applications

[Peter Kasting]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:19 PM, TAMURA, Kent <tkent at 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. [RFC5322]<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#refsRFC5322>
>
> I'd like stricter rule for it. e.g.
> dot-atom-text "@" 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT) 1*("." 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT))
>
> I understand the current production, dot-atom-text "@" dot-atom-text, is a
> subset of addr-spec of RFC 5322.  However dot-atom-text for the domain-part
> is not practical.  The production accepts apparently unusable email address
> like "tkent@!!!!"
>

It would have been nice to send this email as a reply to the current
discussion about type=email validation (several messages sent earlier
today), especially since the argument there is for _less_-strict validation.

PK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090824/2af95d8e/attachment-0002.htm>