[whatwg] input type="url" allow URLs without http:// prefix
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Jul 27 16:53:15 PDT 2009
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote:
> The eleventy squillion WordPress sites out there that allow comments ask
> for your web page address as well as name and email. The method of
> entering a URL does not require the http:// prefix; just beginning the
> URL with www is accepted.
> As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on
> advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the prefix
> when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that input
> type="url" allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input and, if
> ommitted, be assumed when parsing.
Assuming you mean user input, it already is allowed to be optional; the
spec doesn't prevent the user agent from doing whatever they want in terms
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Ian Pouncey wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kornel Lesinski<kornel at geekhood.net>
> > On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 09:46:19 +0100, Bruce Lawson <brucel at opera.com>
> > wrote:
> >> As it's very common for people to drop the http:// prefix on
> >> advertising, business cards etc (and who amongst us reads out the
> >> prefix when reading a URL on the phone?) I'd like to suggest that
> >> input type="url" allows the http:// prefix to be optional on input
> >> and, if ommitted, be assumed when parsing.
> > The spec explicitly allows that actual value seen and edited by the
> > user in the interface is different from DOM value of the input, so
> > browsers are free to prepend http:// automatically (and IMHO should
> > DSK-253195).
> To make this less ambiguous I would prefer that we talk about making it
> optional to specify a protocol or scheme name (personal preference for
> protocol) rather than http:// specifically. While http will be the most
> common protocol by far it is not the only possibility.
The scheme is not optional in the submission format.
> I have no problems with the idea though, I just think there needs to be
> a mechanism for highlighting the change to the user rather than this
> being hidden in the DOM.
That's a UI issue, which is more or less out of scope of the spec.
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Bruce Lawson wrote:
> Excellent. And, while I don't doubt you at all, I'm abashed that I
> missed that nuance, especially as it'#s explicitly allowed? Where would
> I find that in the spec?
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Kornel wrote:
> The "URL state" section says that value in DOM may be different from
> value in the user interface:
> The example difference given in the spec is URL-escaping, but in my
> understanding, it should allow to prepending of protocol as well (I
> admit that last bit is not stated explicitly).
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg