Home / Sudanese webcam / Javascript regex for validating url

Javascript regex for validating url I am fully nude free xxx cam sites

In the list of URLs failing validation that you sent above only the first one is a valid URL (" all the others are not validating against the regex. I am most likely inclined to also remove IPV4 validation from the base regex, nobody remember these numbers and they will most likely change in time.

" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" q=Spaces should be encoded") Ok @form Validators.uri("//") Ok @form Validators.uri("//a") Ok @form Validators.uri("///a") Ok @form Validators.uri("///") Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri("foo.com") Ok @form Validators.uri("rdar://1234") Ok @form Validators.uri(" shouldfail.com") Ok @form Validators.uri(":// should fail") Ok @form Validators.uri(" quux") Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" Ok @form Validators.uri(" @dsgn1graphics, I suggest you check your tests and/or the port of the Regular Expression you are currently using. However I disagree about having patterns that will never be typed by users like "IPV6" and "Puny Code".

However I have been pushed to "re-read" the specifications throughly and was answered on a V8 ticket here: https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail? and even then, serverside validation would be necessary. Looks like the "allowed a trailing dot" clause is missing a backslash in front of the dot, so it in fact allows a trailing character of any type, including whitespace, since that is the semantics of the . @dperini: I don't believe your javascript one liner will match against the period in front of the TLD without two backslashes.

if you plan to modify a group with a repeater, lookahead or just use an OR operator in it, then use a group, but otherwise there's really no point (since all you want, is to make sure everything in the group is present... ) Thank you @Etai G, your expression looks good too. This doesn't take care of the xn-- and 3rd/4th position issue, but unless you're allowing someone to register a domain by you, this is less of an issue (since for most cases, it's for a link, and people only need to link to something that is allowed and exists)... So be careful if you use a trailing dot at the end of the domain name, it may not work in all situations.

javascript regex for validating url-90javascript regex for validating url-72

Essentially, if I were to write the implementation for a regex, when encountering such a group, I would internally be doing this: because first I'm doing a positive lookahead to check if this is even possible... That's why I liked this better (for the host/domain/tld): Note that this is the same as what I posted above, with the exception of switching out the -? I answered to this question previously on Twitter, here is an interesting link with additional info: The title of the article say it all: "The danger of the trailing dot in the domain name".

I'd like to let through URL's without the protocol specified (HTTP(S) or FTP). @nghuuphuoc, the regexp already supports international URLs, just write them using natural UTF-8 encoding.

I'd like to use this as a basis, and I'm hoping you can help me with a simple tweak. I have been directed to read the relevant specs here: and the validity criteria are here: Thank you for the Python port !

The regex was built to match URLs having a real domain name (at least 2 labels separated by a dot).

I am curious to try the effects of this change on my current tests. @eluck, it is written in the comments: 'TLDs have been made mandatory so single names like "localhost" fails'.

121 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*