270568 - IIOService::nsURI Parser does not parse the .foobar.com

Status: VERIFIED INVALID

(Core :: Networking, defect)

Description

[Michael (GoodWill)]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040920 Firefox/0.10.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040920 Firefox/0.10.1

such url as: .foobar.com is not a valid url, yet the IIOService::nsURI function
returns that it is.


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
try this:
function test()
{
  try {
    var ioService =
Components.classes["@mozilla.org/network/io-service;1"].getService(Components.interfaces.nsIIOService);
    var newuri = ioService.newURI("http://.hello.com/", null, null);
    alert('newuri: ' + newuri.spec);
  } catch(e) {
    alert('e: \n\n' + e);
}

}

Actual Results:  
The newuri variable is a valid nsURI object as witnessed by the popup.

Expected Results:  
Returned an error because http://.hello.com is not a valid url

Comment 1

[Darin Fisher]

Does RFC 2396 say that this is an invalid URL?  Or, are you saying that it is
invalid because the name ".foobar.com" fails to resolve via DNS?

Comment 2

[Michael (GoodWill)]

The is what I gleamed from the RFC 2396:

URI Syntactic Components: (taken from RFC 2396)
<scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
scheme        = alpha *( alpha | digit | "+" | "-" | "." )
<scheme-specific-part>
An absolute URI contains the name of the scheme being used (<scheme>)
followed by a colon (":") and then a string (the <scheme-specific-
part>) whose interpretation depends on the scheme.
The URI syntax does not require that the scheme-specific-part have
any general structure or set of semantics which is common among all
URI.  However, a subset of URI do share a common syntax for
representing hierarchical relationships within the namespace.  This
"generic URI" syntax consists of a sequence of four main components:

<scheme>://<authority><path>?<query>

authority     = server | reg_name

The authority component is preceded by a double slash "//" and is
terminated by the next slash "/", question-mark "?", or by the end of
the URI.  Within the authority component, the characters ";", ":",
"@", "?", and "/" are reserved.

reg_name      = 1*( unreserved | escaped | "$" | "," |
                  ";" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" )

unreserved  = alphanum | mark
alphanum = alpha | digit
alpha    = lowalpha | upalpha
lowalpha = "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "g" | "h" | "i" |
           "j" | "k" | "l" | "m" | "n" | "o" | "p" | "q" | "r" |
           "s" | "t" | "u" | "v" | "w" | "x" | "y" | "z"
upalpha  = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F" | "G" | "H" | "I" |
           "J" | "K" | "L" | "M" | "N" | "O" | "P" | "Q" | "R" |
           "S" | "T" | "U" | "V" | "W" | "X" | "Y" | "Z"
digit    = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" |
                 "8" | "9"
mark        = "-" | "_" | "." | "!" | "~" | "*" | "'" | "(" | ")"

So it appears . is allowed as part of .foobar.com

Comment 3

[Michael (GoodWill)]

the leading "." in foobar.com

Comment 4

[Michael (GoodWill)]

grrr, need to checmy spelling better:

the leading "." in. foobar.com

Comment 5

[Michael (GoodWill)]

reg_name is Registry-based Naming Authority

Comment 6

[Darin Fisher]

so, there is no way to know that the URL is "invalid" without first trying to
resolve the hostname.  we don't want to require DNS lookups when parsing URLs as
that would negatively impact page load performance in a huge way.

marking this bug INVALID