Brion Vibber wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Conrad Irwin conrad.irwin@gmail.comwrote:
Out of interest, do you know what percentage of emails in the database don't validate under the new scheme?
That's actually a wise thing to check -- most fails will probably be legitimately bogus entries, but if we can find any that don't validate but *do* work (eg they've been confirmed as functional) that's info we need to report upstream as well -- the new code is using the specs for HTML 5's client-side form validation, which is starting to go into the latest generation of browsers.
In theory the validation rules should be pretty liberal, and you should need to do something very esoteric to not pass. (The old validation regexes from ~2004-2005 got kicked out for failing to deal with things like '+' which turned out to be more common than we thought.)
Folks actually already pushed a fix upstream to the whatwg spec page to allow single-part domains like 'localhost', needed for local-network testing and perhaps some weird intranet setups.
-- brion
The original spec had feedback based precisely on enwiki numbers. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-August/022220.html
So about 100? Note that there are invalid addresses marked as confirmed in wikipedia.