5 ms·
1.2 -> 1.0.0.2 1.2.3 -> 1.2.0.3 But then, much of software would fail here - Firefox/Chrome for example would both threat that as bareword and redirect to se
by aexaey 8y ago
1.2 -> 1.0.0.2
1.2.3 -> 1.2.0.3
But then, much of software would fail here - Firefox/Chrome for example would both threat that as bareword and redirect to search page.
- oneweekwonder 8y agoIt work as expected if you give it the http://1.2.3 http://1.2.3 schema prefix. The input bar is a search bar in modern browsers.
- exikyut 8y agoOr if you follow it with a trailing slash, for less typing 1.1/
- WorldMaker 8y agoOr if you prefix it with // //1.1.1.1 It's one more letter than a suffix, but as a prefix its a bit clearer. I've known companies to post LAN hostname addresses that way, and in written/printed materials it stands out pretty clearly as an address to type. It follows the URL standards (no schema implies current or default schema). Many auto-linking tools (such as a Markdown, Word) recognize it by default (though sometimes results are unpredictable given schema assumptions). It's also increasingly the recommendation for HTML resources where you do want to help insure same-schema requests (good example cross-server/CDN CSS and JS links now are typically written as //css-host.example.com/some/css/file.css).