Problem opening a web page in firefox that has a hyphen "-" character.

[Scott Kitterman]

On Sunday 30 July 2006 20:43, Peter Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:49:09 -0400
>
> Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 July 2006 18:10, Frank Pessers wrote:
> > > Hi everybody,
> > >
> > > I have got a problem with opening web page's that contain a hypen sign.
> > > These are webpages like:
> > >
> > > http://-noorah-.hyves.nl/
> > >
> > > With IE I can open this page. Is this also possible with firefox?
> > >
> > >
> > > Greetings Pezz
> >
> > I assume you mean using IE with Windows?  I tried it with Firefox and IE
> > using Crossover Office 5.0.3 on Dapper and it didn't work with either
> > one. Konqueror doesn't work either.
> >
> > I took a quick look at RFC 1035, which I believe is the authoritative
> > reference and I believe that's a valid domain name (I'm not an expert). 
> > If so, it's a bug.
>
> I had a look at the RFC you cite and found this:
>
> "Note that while upper and lower case letters are allowed in domain
> names, no significance is attached to the case.  That is, two names with
> the same spelling but different case are to be treated as if identical.
>
> The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names.  They must
> start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
> characters only letters, digits, and hyphen.  There are also some
> restrictions on the length.  Labels must be 63 characters or less."
>
> So I wonder if a leading hyphen is allowed? I notice that although "
> nslookup" was able to give the hyves.nl domain in answer to a query using
> the -noorah-.hyves.nl name, the error given by the Dillo browser, which is
> notoriously picky about correct compliance, is "ERROR: Dns can't solve
> -noorah-.hyves.nl "
>
> Interesting peculiarity :) Google was not particularly helpful on the
> subject of leading hyphens in URLs, but perhaps I used the wrong search
> terms...
>
> Peter

I think you're right.  I was looking at the ABNF that immediately precedes 
that discussion and misread it.  I agree.  It's not a valid domain name based 
on RFC 1035.  So I got to looking and RFC 1035 has been updated by RFC1101, 
RFC1183, RFC1348, RFC1876, RFC1982, RFC1995, RFC1996, RFC2065, RFC2136, 
RFC2181, RFC2137, RFC2308, RFC2535, RFC2845, RFC3425, RFC3658, RFC4033, 
RFC4034, RFC4035, RFC4343, RFC2137, RFC2845, RFC3425, RFC3658, RFC4035, and 
RFC4033.  I took a quick look through those and didn't find anything that 
would change that.

So, now I'd say not a bug, but a feature.  

Scott K