# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
HTML es un lenguaje de programación que se usan en páginas web que contienen documentos como imágenes, sonidos, videos, animaciones, etc. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The HyperText Markup Language or HTML is the standard markup language for documents designed to be displayed in a web browser. It can be assisted by technologies such as Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) and scripting languages such as JavaScript.

Web browsers receive HTML documents from a web server or from local storage and render the documents into multimedia web pages. HTML describes the structure of a web page semantically and originally included cues for the appearance of the document.

HTML elements are the building blocks of HTML pages. With HTML constructs, images and other objects such as interactive forms may be embedded into the rendered page. HTML provides a means to create structured documents by denoting structural semantics for text such as headings, paragraphs, lists, links, quotes and other items. HTML elements are delineated by tags, written using angle brackets. Tags such as and directly introduce content into the page. Other tags such as surround and provide information about document text and may include other tags as sub-elements. Browsers do not display the HTML tags but use them to interpret the content of the page.

HTML can embed programs written in a scripting language such as JavaScript, which affects the behavior and content of web pages. Inclusion of CSS defines the look and layout of content. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), former maintainer of the HTML and current maintainer of the CSS standards, has encouraged the use of CSS over explicit presentational HTML since 1997. A form of HTML, known as HTML5, is used to display video and audio, primarily using the element, in collaboration with javascript.

Development

In 1980, physicist Tim Berners-Lee, a contractor at CERN, proposed and prototyped ENQUIRE, a system for CERN researchers to use and share documents. In 1989, Berners-Lee wrote a memo proposing an Internet-based hypertext system. Berners-Lee specified HTML and wrote the browser and server software in late 1990. That year, Berners-Lee and CERN data systems engineer Robert Cailliau collaborated on a joint request for funding, but the project was not formally adopted by CERN. In his personal notes from 1990 he listed "some of the many areas in which hypertext is used" and put an encyclopedia first.

The first publicly available description of HTML was a document called "HTML Tags", first mentioned on the Internet by Tim Berners-Lee in late 1991. It describes 18 elements comprising the initial, relatively simple design of HTML. Except for the hyperlink tag, these were strongly influenced by SGMLguid, an in-house Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML)-based documentation format at CERN. Eleven of these elements still exist in HTML 4.

HTML is a markup language that web browsers use to interpret and compose text, images, and other material into visual or audible web pages. Default characteristics for every item of HTML markup are defined in the browser, and these characteristics can be altered or enhanced by the web page designer's additional use of CSS. Many of the text elements are found in the 1988 ISO technical report TR 9537 Techniques for using SGML, which in turn covers the features of early text formatting languages such as that used by the RUNOFF command developed in the early 1960s for the CTSS (Compatible Time-Sharing System) operating system: these formatting commands were derived from the commands used by typesetters to manually format documents. However, the SGML concept of generalized markup is based on elements (nested annotated ranges with attributes) rather than merely print effects, with also the separation of structure and markup; HTML has been progressively moved in this direction with CSS.

Berners-Lee considered HTML to be an application of SGML. It was formally defined as such by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) with the mid-1993 publication of the first proposal for an HTML specification, the "Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)" Internet Draft by Berners-Lee and Dan Connolly, which included an SGML Document type definition to define the grammar. The draft expired after six months, but was notable for its acknowledgment of the NCSA Mosaic browser's custom tag for embedding in-line images, reflecting the IETF's philosophy of basing standards on successful prototypes. Similarly, Dave Raggett's competing Internet-Draft, "HTML+ (Hypertext Markup Format)", from late 1993, suggested standardizing already-implemented features like tables and fill-out forms.

After the HTML and HTML+ drafts expired in early 1994, the IETF created an HTML Working Group, which in 1995 completed "HTML 2.0", the first HTML specification intended to be treated as a standard against which future implementations should be based.

Further development under the auspices of the IETF was stalled by competing interests. Since 1996, the HTML specifications have been maintained, with input from commercial software vendors, by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). However, in 2000, HTML also became an international standard ( ISO/ IEC 15445:2000). HTML 4.01 was published in late 1999, with further errata published through 2001. In 2004, development began on HTML5 in the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), which became a joint deliverable with the W3C in 2008, and completed and standardized on 28 October 2014.

HTML versions timeline

January 14, 1997

HTML 3.2 was published as a W3C Recommendation. It was the first version developed and standardized exclusively by the W3C, as the IETF had closed its HTML Working Group on September 12, 1996.

Initially code-named "Wilbur", HTML 3.2 dropped math formulas entirely, reconciled overlap among various proprietary extensions and adopted most of Netscape's visual markup tags. Netscape's blink element and Microsoft's marquee element were omitted due to a mutual agreement between the two companies. A markup for mathematical formulas similar to that in HTML was not standardized until 14 months later in MathML.

December 18, 1997

HTML 4.0 was published as a W3C Recommendation. It offers three variations:

Strict, in which deprecated elements are forbidden

Transitional, in which deprecated elements are allowed

Frameset, in which mostly only frame related elements are allowed.

Initially code-named "Cougar", HTML 4.0 adopted many browser-specific element types and attributes, but at the same time sought to phase out Netscape's visual markup features by marking them as deprecated in favor of style sheets. HTML 4 is an SGML application conforming to ISO 8879 - SGML.

April 24, 1998

HTML 4.0 was reissued with minor edits without incrementing the version number.

December 24, 1999

HTML 4.01 was published as a W3C Recommendation. It offers the same three variations as HTML 4.0 and its last errata were published on May 12, 2001.

May 2000

ISO/IEC 15445:2000 ("ISO HTML", based on HTML 4.01 Strict) was published as an ISO/IEC international standard. In the ISO this standard falls in the domain of the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 (ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1, Subcommittee 34 - Document description and processing languages).

After HTML 4.01, there was no new version of HTML for many years as development of the parallel, XML-based language XHTML occupied the W3C's HTML Working Group through the early and mid-2000s.

HTML draft version timeline

October 1991

HTML Tags, an informal CERN document listing 18 HTML tags, was first mentioned in public.

June 1992

First informal draft of the HTML DTD, with seven subsequent revisions (July 15, August 6, August 18, November 17, November 19, November 20, November 22)

November 1992

HTML DTD 1.1 (the first with a version number, based on RCS revisions, which start with 1.1 rather than 1.0), an informal draft

June 1993

Hypertext Markup Language was published by the IETF IIIR Working Group as an Internet Draft (a rough proposal for a standard). It was replaced by a second version one month later.

November 1993

HTML+ was published by the IETF as an Internet Draft and was a competing proposal to the Hypertext Markup Language draft. It expired in July 1994.

November 1994

First draft (revision 00) of HTML 2.0 published by IETF itself (called as "HTML 2.0" from revision 02), that finally led to publication of RFC 1866 in November 1995.

April 1995 (authored March 1995)

HTML 3.0 was proposed as a standard to the IETF, but the proposal expired five months later (28 September 1995) without further action. It included many of the capabilities that were in Raggett's HTML+ proposal, such as support for tables, text flow around figures and the display of complex mathematical formulas.

W3C began development of its own Arena browser as a test bed for HTML 3 and Cascading Style Sheets, but HTML 3.0 did not succeed for several reasons. The draft was considered very large at 150 pages and the pace of browser development, as well as the number of interested parties, had outstripped the resources of the IETF. Browser vendors, including Microsoft and Netscape at the time, chose to implement different subsets of HTML 3's draft features as well as to introduce their own extensions to it. (see Browser wars). These included extensions to control stylistic aspects of documents, contrary to the "belief [of the academic engineering community] that such things as text color, background texture, font size and font face were definitely outside the scope of a language when their only intent was to specify how a document would be organized." Dave Raggett, who has been a W3C Fellow for many years, has commented for example: "To a certain extent, Microsoft built its business on the Web by extending HTML features."

January 2008

HTML5 was published as a Working Draft by the W3C.

Although its syntax closely resembles that of SGML, HTML5 has abandoned any attempt to be an SGML application and has explicitly defined its own "html" serialization, in addition to an alternative XML-based XHTML5 serialization.

2011 HTML5 - Last Call

On 14 February 2011, the W3C extended the charter of its HTML Working Group with clear milestones for HTML5. In May 2011, the working group advanced HTML5 to "Last Call", an invitation to communities inside and outside W3C to confirm the technical soundness of the specification. The W3C developed a comprehensive test suite to achieve broad interoperability for the full specification by 2014, which was the target date for recommendation. In January 2011, the WHATWG renamed its "HTML5" living standard to "HTML". The W3C nevertheless continues its project to release HTML5.

2012 HTML5 - Candidate Recommendation

In July 2012, WHATWG and W3C decided on a degree of separation. W3C will continue the HTML5 specification work, focusing on a single definitive standard, which is considered as a "snapshot" by WHATWG. The WHATWG organization will continue its work with HTML5 as a "Living Standard". The concept of a living standard is that it is never complete and is always being updated and improved. New features can be added but functionality will not be removed.

In December 2012, W3C designated HTML5 as a Candidate Recommendation. The criterion for advancement to W3C Recommendation is "two 100% complete and fully interoperable implementations".

2014 HTML5 - Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation

In September 2014, W3C moved HTML5 to Proposed Recommendation.

On 28 October 2014, HTML5 was released as a stable W3C Recommendation, meaning the specification process is complete.

XHTML versions

XHTML is a separate language that began as a reformulation of HTML 4.01 using XML 1.0. It is no longer being developed as a separate standard.

XHTML 1.0 was published as a W3C Recommendation on January 26, 2000, and was later revised and republished on August 1, 2002. It offers the same three variations as HTML 4.0 and 4.01, reformulated in XML, with minor restrictions.

XHTML 1.1 was published as a W3C Recommendation on May 31, 2001. It is based on XHTML 1.0 Strict, but includes minor changes, can be customized, and is reformulated using modules in the W3C recommendation "Modularization of XHTML", which was published on April 10, 2001.

XHTML 2.0 was a working draft, work on it was abandoned in 2009 in favor of work on HTML5 and XHTML5. XHTML 2.0 was incompatible with XHTML 1.x and, therefore, would be more accurately characterized as an XHTML-inspired new language than an update to XHTML 1.x.

An XHTML syntax, known as "XHTML5.1", is being defined alongside HTML5 in the HTML5 draft.

Transition of HTML Publication to WHATWG

On 28 May 2019, the W3C announced that WHATWG would be the sole publisher of the HTML and DOM standards. The W3C and WHATWG had been publishing competing standards since 2012. While the W3C standard was identical to the WHATWG in 2007 the standards have since progressively diverged due to different design decisions. The WHATWG "Living Standard" had been the de facto web standard for some time.

HTML markup consists of several key components, including those called tags (and their attributes), character-based data types, character references and entity references. HTML tags most commonly come in pairs like and , although some represent empty elements and so are unpaired, for example . The first tag in such a pair is the start tag, and the second is the end tag (they are also called opening tags and closing tags).

Another important component is the HTML document type declaration, which triggers standards mode rendering.

The following is an example of the classic "Hello, World!" program:

The text between and describes the web page, and the text between and is the visible page content. The markup text defines the browser page title shown on browser tabs and window titles, and the tag defines a division of the page used for easy styling. Between and , a element can be used to define webpage metadata.

The Document Type Declaration is for HTML5. If a declaration is not included, various browsers will revert to " quirks mode" for rendering.

HTML documents imply a structure of nested HTML elements. These are indicated in the document by HTML tags, enclosed in angle brackets thus: .[better source needed ]

In the simple, general case, the extent of an element is indicated by a pair of tags: a "start tag" and "end tag" . The text content of the element, if any, is placed between these tags.

Tags may also enclose further tag markup between the start and end, including a mixture of tags and text. This indicates further (nested) elements, as children of the parent element.

The start tag may also include element's attributes within the tag. These indicate other information, such as identifiers for sections within the document, identifiers used to bind style information to the presentation of the document, and for some tags such as the used to embed images, the reference to the image resource in the format like this:

Some elements, such as the line break , or do not permit any embedded content, either text or further tags. These require only a single empty tag (akin to a start tag) and do not use an end tag.

Many tags, particularly the closing end tag for the very commonly used paragraph element , are optional. An HTML browser or other agent can infer the closure for the end of an element from the context and the structural rules defined by the HTML standard. These rules are complex and not widely understood by most HTML coders.

The general form of an HTML element is therefore: . Some HTML elements are defined as empty elements and take the form . Empty elements may enclose no content, for instance, the tag or the inline tag. The name of an HTML element is the name used in the tags. Note that the end tag's name is preceded by a slash character,/, and that in empty elements the end tag is neither required nor allowed. If attributes are not mentioned, default values are used in each case.

Element examples

HTML headings are defined with the to tags with H1 being the highest (or most important) level and H6 the least:

The effects are:

Note that CSS can drastically change the rendering.

Paragraphs:

Line breaks:

. The difference between and is that breaks a line without altering the semantic structure of the page, whereas sections the page into paragraphs. The element is an empty element in that, although it may have attributes, it can take no content and it may not have an end tag.

This is a link in HTML. To create a link the tag is used. The href attribute holds the URL address of the link.

Inputs:

There are many possible ways a user can give input/s like:

Comments:

Comments can help in the understanding of the markup and do not display in the webpage.

There are several types of markup elements used in HTML:

Structural markup indicates the purpose of text

For example, establishes "Golf" as a second-level heading. Structural markup does not denote any specific rendering, but most web browsers have default styles for element formatting. Content may be further styled using Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).

Presentational markup indicates the appearance of the text, regardless of its purpose

For example, indicates that visual output devices should render "boldface" in bold text, but gives little indication what devices that are unable to do this (such as aural devices that read the text aloud) should do. In the case of both and , there are other elements that may have equivalent visual renderings but that are more semantic in nature, such as and respectively. It is easier to see how an aural user agent should interpret the latter two elements. However, they are not equivalent to their presentational counterparts: it would be undesirable for a screen-reader to emphasize the name of a book, for instance, but on a screen such a name would be italicized. Most presentational markup elements have become deprecated under the HTML 4.0 specification in favor of using CSS for styling.

Hypertext markup makes parts of a document into links to other documents

Attributes

Most of the attributes of an element are name-value pairs, separated by = and written within the start tag of an element after the element's name. The value may be enclosed in single or double quotes, although values consisting of certain characters can be left unquoted in HTML (but not XHTML). Leaving attribute values unquoted is considered unsafe. In contrast with name-value pair attributes, there are some attributes that affect the element simply by their presence in the start tag of the element, like the ismap attribute for the img element.

There are several common attributes that may appear in many elements :

The id attribute provides a document-wide unique identifier for an element. This is used to identify the element so that stylesheets can alter its presentational properties, and scripts may alter, animate or delete its contents or presentation. Appended to the URL of the page, it provides a globally unique identifier for the element, typically a sub-section of the page. For example, the ID "Attributes" in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML#Attributes.

The class attribute provides a way of classifying similar elements. This can be used for semantic or presentation purposes. For example, an HTML document might semantically use the designation to indicate that all elements with this class value are subordinate to the main text of the document. In presentation, such elements might be gathered together and presented as footnotes on a page instead of appearing in the place where they occur in the HTML source. Class attributes are used semantically in microformats. Multiple class values may be specified; for example puts the element into both the notation and the important classes.

An author may use the style attribute to assign presentational properties to a particular element. It is considered better practice to use an element's id or class attributes to select the element from within a stylesheet, though sometimes this can be too cumbersome for a simple, specific, or ad hoc styling.

The title attribute is used to attach subtextual explanation to an element. In most browsers this attribute is displayed as a tooltip.

The lang attribute identifies the natural language of the element's contents, which may be different from that of the rest of the document. For example, in an English-language document:

The abbreviation element, abbr, can be used to demonstrate some of these attributes:

This example displays as HTML; in most browsers, pointing the cursor at the abbreviation should display the title text "Hypertext Markup Language."

Most elements take the language-related attribute dir to specify text direction, such as with "rtl" for right-to-left text in, for example, Arabic, Persian or Hebrew.

Character and entity references

As of version 4.0, HTML defines a set of 252 character entity references and a set of 1,114,050 numeric character references, both of which allow individual characters to be written via simple markup, rather than literally. A literal character and its markup counterpart are considered equivalent and are rendered identically.

The ability to " escape" characters in this way allows for the characters < and & (when written as &lt; and &amp;, respectively) to be interpreted as character data, rather than markup. For example, a literal < normally indicates the start of a tag, and & normally indicates the start of a character entity reference or numeric character reference; writing it as &amp; or &#x26; or &#38; allows & to be included in the content of an element or in the value of an attribute. The double-quote character ("), when not used to quote an attribute value, must also be escaped as &quot; or &#x22; or &#34; when it appears within the attribute value itself. Equivalently, the single-quote character ('), when not used to quote an attribute value, must also be escaped as &#x27; or &#39; (or as &apos; in HTML5 or XHTML documents) when it appears within the attribute value itself. If document authors overlook the need to escape such characters, some browsers can be very forgiving and try to use context to guess their intent. The result is still invalid markup, which makes the document less accessible to other browsers and to other user agents that may try to parse the document for search and indexing purposes for example.

Escaping also allows for characters that are not easily typed, or that are not available in the document's character encoding, to be represented within element and attribute content. For example, the acute-accented e ( é), a character typically found only on Western European and South American keyboards, can be written in any HTML document as the entity reference &eacute; or as the numeric references &#xE9; or &#233;, using characters that are available on all keyboards and are supported in all character encodings. Unicode character encodings such as UTF-8 are compatible with all modern browsers and allow direct access to almost all the characters of the world's writing systems.

HTML defines several data types for element content, such as script data and stylesheet data, and a plethora of types for attribute values, including IDs, names, URIs, numbers, units of length, languages, media descriptors, colors, character encodings, dates and times, and so on. All of these data types are specializations of character data.

Document type declaration

HTML documents are required to start with a Document Type Declaration (informally, a "doctype"). In browsers, the doctype helps to define the rendering mode-particularly whether to use quirks mode.

The original purpose of the doctype was to enable parsing and validation of HTML documents by SGML tools based on the Document Type Definition (DTD). The DTD to which the DOCTYPE refers contains a machine-readable grammar specifying the permitted and prohibited content for a document conforming to such a DTD. Browsers, on the other hand, do not implement HTML as an application of SGML and by consequence do not read the DTD.

HTML5 does not define a DTD; therefore, in HTML5 the doctype declaration is simpler and shorter:

An example of an HTML 4 doctype

This declaration references the DTD for the "strict" version of HTML 4.01. SGML-based validators read the DTD in order to properly parse the document and to perform validation. In modern browsers, a valid doctype activates standards mode as opposed to quirks mode.

In addition, HTML 4.01 provides Transitional and Frameset DTDs, as explained below. Transitional type is the most inclusive, incorporating current tags as well as older or "deprecated" tags, with the Strict DTD excluding deprecated tags. Frameset has all tags necessary to make frames on a page along with the tags included in transitional type.

Semantic HTML

Semantic HTML is a way of writing HTML that emphasizes the meaning of the encoded information over its presentation (look). HTML has included semantic markup from its inception, but has also included presentational markup, such as , and tags. There are also the semantically neutral span and div tags. Since the late 1990s, when Cascading Style Sheets were beginning to work in most browsers, web authors have been encouraged to avoid the use of presentational HTML markup with a view to the separation of presentation and content.

In a 2001 discussion of the Semantic Web, Tim Berners-Lee and others gave examples of ways in which intelligent software "agents" may one day automatically crawl the web and find, filter and correlate previously unrelated, published facts for the benefit of human users. Such agents are not commonplace even now, but some of the ideas of Web 2.0, mashups and price comparison websites may be coming close. The main difference between these web application hybrids and Berners-Lee's semantic agents lies in the fact that the current aggregation and hybridization of information is usually designed in by web developers, who already know the web locations and the API semantics of the specific data they wish to mash, compare and combine.

An important type of web agent that does crawl and read web pages automatically, without prior knowledge of what it might find, is the web crawler or search-engine spider. These software agents are dependent on the semantic clarity of web pages they find as they use various techniques and algorithms to read and index millions of web pages a day and provide web users with search facilities without which the World Wide Web's usefulness would be greatly reduced.

In order for search-engine spiders to be able to rate the significance of pieces of text they find in HTML documents, and also for those creating mashups and other hybrids as well as for more automated agents as they are developed, the semantic structures that exist in HTML need to be widely and uniformly applied to bring out the meaning of published text.

Presentational markup tags are deprecated in current HTML and XHTML recommendations. The majority of presentational features from previous versions of HTML are no longer allowed as they lead to poorer accessibility, higher cost of site maintenance, and larger document sizes.

Good semantic HTML also improves the accessibility of web documents (see also Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). For example, when a screen reader or audio browser can correctly ascertain the structure of a document, it will not waste the visually impaired user's time by reading out repeated or irrelevant information when it has been marked up correctly.

HTML documents can be delivered by the same means as any other computer file. However, they are most often delivered either by HTTP from a web server or by email.

The World Wide Web is composed primarily of HTML documents transmitted from web servers to web browsers using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP). However, HTTP is used to serve images, sound, and other content, in addition to HTML. To allow the web browser to know how to handle each document it receives, other information is transmitted along with the document. This meta data usually includes the MIME type (e.g., text/html or application/xhtml+xml) and the character encoding (see Character encoding in HTML).

In modern browsers, the MIME type that is sent with the HTML document may affect how the document is initially interpreted. A document sent with the XHTML MIME type is expected to be well-formed XML; syntax errors may cause the browser to fail to render it. The same document sent with the HTML MIME type might be displayed successfully, since some browsers are more lenient with HTML.

The W3C recommendations state that XHTML 1.0 documents that follow guidelines set forth in the recommendation's Appendix C may be labeled with either MIME Type. XHTML 1.1 also states that XHTML 1.1 documents should be labeled with either MIME type.

Most graphical email clients allow the use of a subset of HTML (often ill-defined) to provide formatting and semantic markup not available with plain text. This may include typographic information like coloured headings, emphasized and quoted text, inline images and diagrams. Many such clients include both a GUI editor for composing HTML e-mail messages and a rendering engine for displaying them. Use of HTML in e-mail is criticized by some because of compatibility issues, because it can help disguise phishing attacks, because of accessibility issues for blind or visually impaired people, because it can confuse spam filters and because the message size is larger than plain text.

Naming conventions

The most common filename extension for files containing HTML is .html. A common abbreviation of this is .htm, which originated because some early operating systems and file systems, such as DOS and the limitations imposed by FAT data structure, limited file extensions to three letters.

HTML Application

An HTML Application (HTA; file extension .hta) is a Microsoft Windows application that uses HTML and Dynamic HTML in a browser to provide the application's graphical interface. A regular HTML file is confined to the security model of the web browser's security, communicating only to web servers and manipulating only web page objects and site cookies. An HTA runs as a fully trusted application and therefore has more privileges, like creation/editing/removal of files and Windows Registry entries. Because they operate outside the browser's security model, HTAs cannot be executed via HTTP, but must be downloaded (just like an EXE file) and executed from local file system.

HTML4 variations

Since its inception, HTML and its associated protocols gained acceptance relatively quickly.[by whom? ] However, no clear standards existed in the early years of the language. Though its creators originally conceived of HTML as a semantic language devoid of presentation details, practical uses pushed many presentational elements and attributes into the language, driven largely by the various browser vendors. The latest standards surrounding HTML reflect efforts to overcome the sometimes chaotic development of the language and to create a rational foundation for building both meaningful and well-presented documents. To return HTML to its role as a semantic language, the W3C has developed style languages such as CSS and XSL to shoulder the burden of presentation. In conjunction, the HTML specification has slowly reined in the presentational elements.

There are two axes differentiating various variations of HTML as currently specified: SGML-based HTML versus XML-based HTML (referred to as XHTML) on one axis, and strict versus transitional (loose) versus frameset on the other axis.

SGML-based versus XML-based HTML

One difference in the latest[when? ] HTML specifications lies in the distinction between the SGML-based specification and the XML-based specification. The XML-based specification is usually called XHTML to distinguish it clearly from the more traditional definition. However, the root element name continues to be "html" even in the XHTML-specified HTML. The W3C intended XHTML 1.0 to be identical to HTML 4.01 except where limitations of XML over the more complex SGML require workarounds. Because XHTML and HTML are closely related, they are sometimes documented in parallel. In such circumstances, some authors conflate the two names as (X)HTML or X(HTML).

Like HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0 has three sub-specifications: strict, transitional and frameset.

Aside from the different opening declarations for a document, the differences between an HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 document-in each of the corresponding DTDs-are largely syntactic. The underlying syntax of HTML allows many shortcuts that XHTML does not, such as elements with optional opening or closing tags, and even empty elements which must not have an end tag. By contrast, XHTML requires all elements to have an opening tag and a closing tag. XHTML, however, also introduces a new shortcut: an XHTML tag may be opened and closed within the same tag, by including a slash before the end of the tag like this: . The introduction of this shorthand, which is not used in the SGML declaration for HTML 4.01, may confuse earlier software unfamiliar with this new convention. A fix for this is to include a space before closing the tag, as such: .

To understand the subtle differences between HTML and XHTML, consider the transformation of a valid and well-formed XHTML 1.0 document that adheres to Appendix C (see below) into a valid HTML 4.01 document. To make this translation requires the following steps:

1. The language for an element should be specified with a lang attribute rather than the XHTML xml:lang attribute. XHTML uses XML's built in language-defining functionality attribute.

2. Remove the XML namespace (xmlns=URI). HTML has no facilities for namespaces.

3. Change the document type declaration from XHTML 1.0 to HTML 4.01. (see DTD section for further explanation).

4. If present, remove the XML declaration. (Typically this is: ).

5. Ensure that the document's MIME type is set to text/html. For both HTML and XHTML, this comes from the HTTP Content-Type header sent by the server.

6. Change the XML empty-element syntax to an HTML style empty element ( to ).

Those are the main changes necessary to translate a document from XHTML 1.0 to HTML 4.01. To translate from HTML to XHTML would also require the addition of any omitted opening or closing tags. Whether coding in HTML or XHTML it may just be best to always include the optional tags within an HTML document rather than remembering which tags can be omitted.

A well-formed XHTML document adheres to all the syntax requirements of XML. A valid document adheres to the content specification for XHTML, which describes the document structure.

The W3C recommends several conventions to ensure an easy migration between HTML and XHTML (see HTML Compatibility Guidelines). The following steps can be applied to XHTML 1.0 documents only:

Include both xml:lang and lang attributes on any elements assigning language.

Use the empty-element syntax only for elements specified as empty in HTML.

Include an extra space in empty-element tags: for example instead of .

Include explicit close tags for elements that permit content but are left empty (for example, , not ).

Omit the XML declaration.

By carefully following the W3C's compatibility guidelines, a user agent should be able to interpret the document equally as HTML or XHTML. For documents that are XHTML 1.0 and have been made compatible in this way, the W3C permits them to be served either as HTML (with a text/html MIME type), or as XHTML (with an application/xhtml+xml or application/xml MIME type). When delivered as XHTML, browsers should use an XML parser, which adheres strictly to the XML specifications for parsing the document's contents.

Transitional versus strict

HTML 4 defined three different versions of the language: Strict, Transitional (once called Loose) and Frameset. The Strict version is intended for new documents and is considered best practice, while the Transitional and Frameset versions were developed to make it easier to transition documents that conformed to older HTML specification or didn't conform to any specification to a version of HTML 4. The Transitional and Frameset versions allow for presentational markup, which is omitted in the Strict version. Instead, cascading style sheets are encouraged to improve the presentation of HTML documents. Because XHTML 1 only defines an XML syntax for the language defined by HTML 4, the same differences apply to XHTML 1 as well.

The Transitional version allows the following parts of the vocabulary, which are not included in the Strict version:

A looser content model
Inline elements and plain text are allowed directly in: body, blockquote, form, noscript and noframes

Presentation related elements

underline (u)(Deprecated. can confuse a visitor with a hyperlink.)

strike-through (s)

center (Deprecated. use CSS instead.)

font (Deprecated. use CSS instead.)

basefont (Deprecated. use CSS instead.)

Presentation related attributes

background (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) and bgcolor (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) attributes for body (required element according to the W3C.) element.

align (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) attribute on div, form, paragraph (p) and heading (h1...h6) elements

align (Deprecated. use CSS instead.), noshade (Deprecated. use CSS instead.), size (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) and width (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) attributes on hr element

align (Deprecated. use CSS instead.), border, vspace and hspace attributes on img and object (caution: the object element is only supported in Internet Explorer (from the major browsers)) elements

align (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) attribute on legend and caption elements

align (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) and bgcolor (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) on table element

nowrap (Obsolete), bgcolor (Deprecated. use CSS instead.), width, height on td and th elements

bgcolor (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) attribute on tr element

clear (Obsolete) attribute on br element

type (Deprecated. use CSS instead.), compact (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) and start (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) attributes on ol and ul elements

type and value attributes on li element

width attribute on pre element

Additional elements in Transitional specification

menu (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) list (no substitute, though unordered list is recommended)

dir (Deprecated. use CSS instead.) list (no substitute, though unordered list is recommended)

isindex (Deprecated.) (element requires server-side support and is typically added to documents server-side, form and input elements can be used as a substitute)

applet (Deprecated. use the object element instead.)

The language (Obsolete) attribute on script element (redundant with the type attribute).

The Frameset version includes everything in the Transitional version, as well as the frameset element (used instead of body) and the frame element.

Frameset versus transitional

In addition to the above transitional differences, the frameset specifications (whether XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01) specify a different content model, with frameset replacing body, that contains either frame elements, or optionally noframes with a body.

Summary of specification versions

As this list demonstrates, the loose versions of the specification are maintained for legacy support. However, contrary to popular misconceptions, the move to XHTML does not imply a removal of this legacy support. Rather the X in XML stands for extensible and the W3C is modularizing the entire specification and opening it up to independent extensions. The primary achievement in the move from XHTML 1.0 to XHTML 1.1 is the modularization of the entire specification. The strict version of HTML is deployed in XHTML 1.1 through a set of modular extensions to the base XHTML 1.1 specification. Likewise, someone looking for the loose (transitional) or frameset specifications will find similar extended XHTML 1.1 support (much of it is contained in the legacy or frame modules). The modularization also allows for separate features to develop on their own timetable. So for example, XHTML 1.1 will allow quicker migration to emerging XML standards such as MathML (a presentational and semantic math language based on XML) and XForms -a new highly advanced web-form technology to replace the existing HTML forms.

In summary, the HTML 4 specification primarily reined in all the various HTML implementations into a single clearly written specification based on SGML. XHTML 1.0, ported this specification, as is, to the new XML defined specification. Next, XHTML 1.1 takes advantage of the extensible nature of XML and modularizes the whole specification. XHTML 2.0 was intended to be the first step in adding new features to the specification in a standards-body-based approach.

WHATWG HTML versus HTML5

The HTML Living Standard, which is developed by WHATWG, is the official version, while W3C HTML5 is no longer separate from WHATWG.

WYSIWYG editors

This article Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the is missing information about contenteditable. talk page.

There are some WYSIWYG editors (What You See Is What You Get), in which the user lays out everything as it is to appear in the HTML document using a graphical user interface (GUI), often similar to word processors. The editor renders the document rather than show the code, so authors do not require extensive knowledge of HTML.

The WYSIWYG editing model has been criticized, primarily because of the low quality of the generated code; there are voices[who? ] advocating a change to the WYSIWYM model (What You See Is What You Mean).

WYSIWYG editors remain a controversial topic because of their perceived flaws such as:

Relying mainly on layout as opposed to meaning, often using markup that does not convey the intended meaning but simply copies the layout.

Often producing extremely verbose and redundant code that fails to make use of the cascading nature of HTML and CSS.

Often producing ungrammatical markup, called tag soup or semantically incorrect markup (such as for italics).

As a great deal of the information in HTML documents is not in the layout, the model has been criticized for its "what you see is all you get"-nature.

References

1. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim (December 9, 1991). "Re: SGML/HTML docs, X Browser (archived www-talk mailing list post)". w3. Archived from the original on December 22, 2007. SGML is very general. HTML is a specific application of the SGML basic syntax applied to hypertext documents with simple structure.

2. ^ Raggett, Dave. "A Review of the HTML+ Document Format". w3. Archived from the original on February 29, 2000. The hypertext markup language HTML was developed as a simple non-proprietary delivery format for global hypertext. HTML+ is a set of modular extensions to HTML and has been developed in response to a growing understanding of the needs of information providers. These extensions include text flow around floating figures, fill-out forms, tables and mathematical equations.

3. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; Connelly, Daniel (November 1995). "Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0". ietf.org. Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC1866. RFC . S2CID 6628570. Archived from the original on August 11, 2010. This document thus defines an HTML 2.0 (to distinguish it from the previous informal specifications). Future (generally upwardly compatible) versions of HTML with new features will be released with higher version numbers.

4. ^ "HTML5 - Hypertext Markup Language - 5.0". Internet Engineering Task Force. 28 October 2014. Archived from the original on October 28, 2014. This document recommends HTML 5.0 after completion.

5. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; Connolly, Daniel (June 1993). "Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) Internet Draft version 1.1". IETF IIIR Working Group.

6. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; Connolly, Daniel (June 1993). "Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) Internet Draft version 1.2". IETF IIIR Working Group.

7. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; Connolly, Daniel (28 November 1994). "HyperText Markup Language Specification - 2.0 INTERNET DRAFT". Internet Engineering Task Force.

8. ^ Shankland, Stephen (July 9, 2009). "An epitaph for the Web standard, XHTML 2". CNET. CBS INTERACTIVE INC.

9. ^ Berners-Lee, Tim; Fischetti, Mark (2000). Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor. San Francisco: Harper. ISBN 978-0-06-251587-2.

10. This article notes that presentational HTML markup may be useful when targeting browsers "before Netscape 4.0 and Internet Explorer 4.0". See the ^ list of web browsers to confirm that these were both released in 1997.

11. ^ Nigel Shadbolt, Wendy Hall and Tim Berners-Lee (2006). "The Semantic Web Revisited" (PDF). IEEE Intelligent Systems.

12. ^ "XHTML 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)". World Wide Web Consortium. 2002 [2000]. XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C, "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML browsers. Those documents, and any other document conforming to this specification, may also be labeled with the Internet Media Type "application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236].

13. ^ Bradner, Scott O. (1997). "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels". Internet Engineering Task Force. doi:10.17487/RFC2119. RFC . 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

14. ^ "XHTML 1.1 - Module-based XHTML - Second Edition". World Wide Web Consortium. 2007. XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type text/html as defined in [RFC2854] or application/xhtml+xml as defined in [RFC3236].

15. ^ Sauer, C.: WYSIWIKI - Questioning WYSIWYG in the Internet Age. In: Wikimania (2006)

16. ^ Spiesser, J., Kitchen, L.: Optimization of HTML automatically generated by WYSIWYG programs. In: 13th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 355-364. WWW '04. ACM, New York, NY (New York, NY, U.S., May 17-20, 2004)

17. ^ XHTML Reference: blockquote Archived 2010-03-25 at the Wayback Machine. Xhtml.com. Retrieved on 2012-02-16.

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The HyperText Markup Language or HTML is the standard markup language for documents designed to be displayed in a web browser. It can be assisted by technologies such as Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) and scripting languages such as JavaScript. Web browsers receive HTML documents from a web server or from local storage and render the documents into multimedia web pages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Los navegadores son programas capaces de interpretar el lenguaje HTML

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Los servidores almacenan toda la información de las páginas web y son potentes equipos que están siempre conectados a Internet

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
El protocolo HTTP es el que utilizan los servidores para enviar y recibir documentos a través de Internet mientras que el protocolo HTTPS usan una conexión segura mediante un cifrado SSL para que los datos viajen de modo seguro de un lugar a otro

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
URL es la dirección para acceder a una página web

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
 La dirección IP es un código que identifica cada ordenador o cada grupo de ordenadores de forma única

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Una DNS es una base de datos que relaciona cada dirección URL en forma de texto con su dirección IP en forma de número, de modo que actúa como intermediario dándonos la dirección física del servidor donde está la información 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Domain Name System ( DNS) is a hierarchical and distributed naming system for computers, services, and other resources in the Internet or other Internet Protocol (IP) networks. It associates various information with domain names (identification strings) assigned to each of the associated entities. Most prominently, it translates readily memorized domain names to the numerical IP addresses needed for locating and identifying computer services and devices with the underlying network protocols. The Domain Name System has been an essential component of the functionality of the Internet since 1985.

The Domain Name System delegates the responsibility of assigning domain names and mapping those names to Internet resources by designating authoritative name servers for each domain. Network administrators may delegate authority over sub-domains of their allocated name space to other name servers. This mechanism provides distributed and fault-tolerant service and was designed to avoid a single large central database. In addition, the DNS specifies the technical functionality of the database service that is at its core. It defines the DNS protocol, a detailed specification of the data structures and data communication exchanges used in the DNS, as part of the Internet protocol suite.

The Internet maintains two principal namespaces, the domain name hierarchy and the IP address spaces. The Domain Name System maintains the domain name hierarchy and provides translation services between it and the address spaces. Internet name servers and a communication protocol implement the Domain Name System. A DNS name server is a server that stores the DNS records for a domain; a DNS name server responds with answers to queries against its database.

The most common types of records stored in the DNS database are for start of authority ( SOA), IP addresses ( A and AAAA), SMTP mail exchangers (MX), name servers (NS), pointers for reverse DNS lookups (PTR), and domain name aliases (CNAME). Although not intended to be a general purpose database, DNS has been expanded over time to store records for other types of data for either automatic lookups, such as DNSSEC records, or for human queries such as responsible person (RP) records. As a general purpose database, the DNS has also been used in combating unsolicited email (spam) by storing a real-time blackhole list (RBL). The DNS database is traditionally stored in a structured text file, the zone file, but other database systems are common.

The Domain Name System originally used the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) as transport over IP. Reliability, security, and privacy concerns spawned the use of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) as well as numerous other protocol developments.

An often-used analogy to explain the DNS is that it serves as the phone book for the Internet by translating human-friendly computer hostnames into IP addresses. For example, the hostname www.example.com within the domain name example.com translates to the addresses ( IPv4) and 2606:2800:220:1:248:1893:25c8:1946 ( IPv6). The DNS can be quickly and transparently updated, allowing a service's location on the network to change without affecting the end users, who continue to use the same hostname. Users take advantage of this when they use meaningful Uniform Resource Locators ( URLs) and e-mail addresses without having to know how the computer actually locates the services.

An important and ubiquitous function of the DNS is its central role in distributed Internet services such as cloud services and content delivery networks. When a user accesses a distributed Internet service using a URL, the domain name of the URL is translated to the IP address of a server that is proximal to the user. The key functionality of the DNS exploited here is that different users can simultaneously receive different translations for the same domain name, a key point of divergence from a traditional phone-book view of the DNS. This process of using the DNS to assign proximal servers to users is key to providing faster and more reliable responses on the Internet and is widely used by most major Internet services.

The DNS reflects the structure of administrative responsibility on the Internet. Each subdomain is a zone of administrative autonomy delegated to a manager. For zones operated by a registry, administrative information is often complemented by the registry's RDAP and WHOIS services. That data can be used to gain insight on, and track responsibility for, a given host on the Internet.

Using a simpler, more memorable name in place of a host's numerical address dates back to the ARPANET era. The Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) maintained a text file named HOSTS.TXT that mapped host names to the numerical addresses of computers on the ARPANET. Elizabeth Feinler developed and maintained the first ARPANET directory. Maintenance of numerical addresses, called the Assigned Numbers List, was handled by Jon Postel at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (ISI), whose team worked closely with SRI.

Addresses were assigned manually. Computers, including their hostnames and addresses, were added to the primary file by contacting the SRI Network Information Center (NIC), directed by Feinler, via telephone during business hours. Later, Feinler set up a WHOIS directory on a server in the NIC for retrieval of information about resources, contacts, and entities. She and her team developed the concept of domains. Feinler suggested that domains should be based on the location of the physical address of the computer. Computers at educational institutions would have the domain , for example. She and her team managed the Host Naming Registry from 1972 to 1989.

By the early 1980s, maintaining a single, centralized host table had become slow and unwieldy and the emerging network required an automated naming system to address technical and personnel issues. Postel directed the task of forging a compromise between five competing proposals of solutions to Paul Mockapetris. Mockapetris instead created the Domain Name System in 1983 while at the University of Southern California.

The Internet Engineering Task Force published the original specifications in RFC 882 and RFC 883 in November 1983. These were updated in RFC 973 in January 1986.

In 1984, four UC Berkeley students, Douglas Terry, Mark Painter, David Riggle, and Songnian Zhou, wrote the first Unix name server implementation for the Berkeley Internet Name Domain, commonly referred to as BIND. In 1985, Kevin Dunlap of DEC substantially revised the DNS implementation. Mike Karels, Phil Almquist, and Paul Vixie then took over BIND maintenance. Internet Systems Consortium was founded in 1994 by Rick Adams, Paul Vixie, and Carl Malamud, expressly to provide a home for BIND development and maintenance. BIND versions from 4.9.3 onward were developed and maintained by ISC, with support provided by ISC's sponsors. As co-architects/programmers, Bob Halley and Paul Vixie released the first production-ready version of BIND version 8 in May 1997. Since 2000, over 43 different core developers have worked on BIND.

In November 1987, RFC 1034 and RFC 1035 superseded the 1983 DNS specifications. Several additional Request for Comments have proposed extensions to the core DNS protocols.

The domain name space consists of a tree data structure. Each node or leaf in the tree has a label and zero or more resource records (RR), which hold information associated with the domain name. The domain name itself consists of the label, concatenated with the name of its parent node on the right, separated by a dot.

The tree sub-divides into zones beginning at the root zone. A DNS zone may consist of as many domains and sub domains as the zone manager chooses. DNS can also be partitioned according to class where the separate classes can be thought of as an array of parallel namespace trees.

The hierarchical Domain Name System for class Internet, organized into zones, each served by a name server

Administrative responsibility for any zone may be divided by creating additional zones. Authority over the new zone is said to be delegated to a designated name server. The parent zone ceases to be authoritative for the new zone.

Domain name syntax, internationalization

The definitive descriptions of the rules for forming domain names appear in RFC 1035, RFC 1123, RFC 2181, and RFC 5892. A domain name consists of one or more parts, technically called labels, that are conventionally concatenated, and delimited by dots, such as example.com.

The right-most label conveys the top-level domain; for example, the domain name www.example.com belongs to the top-level domain com.

The hierarchy of domains descends from right to left; each label to the left specifies a subdivision, or subdomain of the domain to the right. For example, the label example specifies a subdomain of the com domain, and www is a subdomain of example.com. This tree of subdivisions may have up to 127 levels.

A label may contain zero to 63 characters. The null label, of length zero, is reserved for the root zone. The full domain name may not exceed the length of 253 characters in its textual representation. In the internal binary representation of the DNS the maximum length requires 255 octets of storage, as it also stores the length of the name.

Although no technical limitation exists to prevent domain name labels using any character which is representable by an octet, hostnames use a preferred format and character set. The characters allowed in labels are a subset of the ASCII character set, consisting of characters a through z, A through Z, digits 0 through 9, and hyphen. This rule is known as the LDH rule (letters, digits, hyphen). Domain names are interpreted in case-independent manner. Labels may not start or end with a hyphen. An additional rule requires that top-level domain names should not be all-numeric.

The limited set of ASCII characters permitted in the DNS prevented the representation of names and words of many languages in their native alphabets or scripts. To make this possible, ICANN approved the Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) system, by which user applications, such as web browsers, map Unicode strings into the valid DNS character set using Punycode. In 2009 ICANN approved the installation of internationalized domain name country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). In addition, many registries of the existing top-level domain names (TLDs) have adopted the IDNA system, guided by RFC 5890, RFC 5891, RFC 5892, RFC 5893.

The Domain Name System is maintained by a distributed database system, which uses the client-server model. The nodes of this database are the name servers. Each domain has at least one authoritative DNS server that publishes information about that domain and the name servers of any domains subordinate to it. The top of the hierarchy is served by the root name servers, the servers to query when looking up ( resolving) a TLD.

Authoritative name server

An authoritative name server is a name server that only gives answers to DNS queries from data that have been configured by an original source, for example, the domain administrator or by dynamic DNS methods, in contrast to answers obtained via a query to another name server that only maintains a cache of data.

An authoritative name server can either be a primary server or a secondary server. Historically the terms master/slave and primary/secondary were sometimes used interchangeably but the current practice is to use the latter form. A primary server is a server that stores the original copies of all zone records. A secondary server uses a special automatic updating mechanism in the DNS protocol in communication with its primary to maintain an identical copy of the primary records.

Every DNS zone must be assigned a set of authoritative name servers. This set of servers is stored in the parent domain zone with name server (NS) records.

An authoritative server indicates its status of supplying definitive answers, deemed authoritative, by setting a protocol flag, called the " Authoritative Answer" ( AA) bit in its responses. This flag is usually reproduced prominently in the output of DNS administration query tools, such as dig, to indicate that the responding name server is an authority for the domain name in question.

When a name server is designated as the authoritative server for a domain name for which it does not have authoritative data, it presents a type of error called a "lame delegation" or "lame response".

Domain name resolvers determine the domain name servers responsible for the domain name in question by a sequence of queries starting with the right-most (top-level) domain label.

A DNS resolver that implements the iterative approach mandated by RFC 1034; in this case, the resolver consults three name servers to resolve the fully qualified domain name "www.wikipedia.org".

For proper operation of its domain name resolver, a network host is configured with an initial cache ( hints) of the known addresses of the root name servers. The hints are updated periodically by an administrator by retrieving a dataset from a reliable source.

Assuming the resolver has no cached records to accelerate the process, the resolution process starts with a query to one of the root servers. In typical operation, the root servers do not answer directly, but respond with a referral to more authoritative servers, e.g., a query for "www.wikipedia.org" is referred to the org servers. The resolver now queries the servers referred to, and iteratively repeats this process until it receives an authoritative answer. The diagram illustrates this process for the host that is named by the fully qualified domain name "www.wikipedia.org".

This mechanism would place a large traffic burden on the root servers, if every resolution on the Internet required starting at the root. In practice caching is used in DNS servers to off-load the root servers, and as a result, root name servers actually are involved in only a relatively small fraction of all requests.

Recursive and caching name server

In theory, authoritative name servers are sufficient for the operation of the Internet. However, with only authoritative name servers operating, every DNS query must start with recursive queries at the root zone of the Domain Name System and each user system would have to implement resolver software capable of recursive operation.

To improve efficiency, reduce DNS traffic across the Internet, and increase performance in end-user applications, the Domain Name System supports DNS cache servers which store DNS query results for a period of time determined in the configuration (time-to-live) of the domain name record in question. Typically, such caching DNS servers also implement the recursive algorithm necessary to resolve a given name starting with the DNS root through to the authoritative name servers of the queried domain. With this function implemented in the name server, user applications gain efficiency in design and operation.

The combination of DNS caching and recursive functions in a name server is not mandatory; the functions can be implemented independently in servers for special purposes.

Internet service providers typically provide recursive and caching name servers for their customers. In addition, many home networking routers implement DNS caches and recursion to improve efficiency in the local network.

The client side of the DNS is called a DNS resolver. A resolver is responsible for initiating and sequencing the queries that ultimately lead to a full resolution (translation) of the resource sought, e.g., translation of a domain name into an IP address. DNS resolvers are classified by a variety of query methods, such as recursive, non-recursive, and iterative. A resolution process may use a combination of these methods.

In a non-recursive query, a DNS resolver queries a DNS server that provides a record either for which the server is authoritative, or it provides a partial result without querying other servers. In case of a caching DNS resolver, the non-recursive query of its local DNS cache delivers a result and reduces the load on upstream DNS servers by caching DNS resource records for a period of time after an initial response from upstream DNS servers.

In a recursive query, a DNS resolver queries a single DNS server, which may in turn query other DNS servers on behalf of the requester. For example, a simple stub resolver running on a home router typically makes a recursive query to the DNS server run by the user's ISP. A recursive query is one for which the DNS server answers the query completely by querying other name servers as needed. In typical operation, a client issues a recursive query to a caching recursive DNS server, which subsequently issues non-recursive queries to determine the answer and send a single answer back to the client. The resolver, or another DNS server acting recursively on behalf of the resolver, negotiates use of recursive service using bits in the query headers. DNS servers are not required to support recursive queries.

The iterative query procedure is a process in which a DNS resolver queries a chain of one or more DNS servers. Each server refers the client to the next server in the chain, until the current server can fully resolve the request. For example, a possible resolution of www.example.com would query a global root server, then a "com" server, and finally an "example.com" server.

Name servers in delegations are identified by name, rather than by IP address. This means that a resolving name server must issue another DNS request to find out the IP address of the server to which it has been referred. If the name given in the delegation is a subdomain of the domain for which the delegation is being provided, there is a circular dependency.

In this case, the name server providing the delegation must also provide one or more IP addresses for the authoritative name server mentioned in the delegation. This information is called glue. The delegating name server provides this glue in the form of records in the additional section of the DNS response, and provides the delegation in the authority section of the response. A glue record is a combination of the name server and IP address.

For example, if the authoritative name server for example.org is ns1.example.org, a computer trying to resolve www.example.org first resolves ns1.example.org. As ns1 is contained in example.org, this requires resolving example.org first, which presents a circular dependency. To break the dependency, the name server for the top level domain org includes glue along with the delegation for example.org. The glue records are address records that provide IP addresses for ns1.example.org. The resolver uses one or more of these IP addresses to query one of the domain's authoritative servers, which allows it to complete the DNS query.

A standard practice in implementing name resolution in applications is to reduce the load on the Domain Name System servers by caching results locally, or in intermediate resolver hosts. Results obtained from a DNS request are always associated with the time to live (TTL), an expiration time after which the results must be discarded or refreshed. The TTL is set by the administrator of the authoritative DNS server. The period of validity may vary from a few seconds to days or even weeks.

As a result of this distributed caching architecture, changes to DNS records do not propagate throughout the network immediately, but require all caches to expire and to be refreshed after the TTL. RFC 1912 conveys basic rules for determining appropriate TTL values.

Some resolvers may override TTL values, as the protocol supports caching for up to sixty-eight years or no caching at all. Negative caching, i.e. the caching of the fact of non-existence of a record, is determined by name servers authoritative for a zone which must include the Start of Authority (SOA) record when reporting no data of the requested type exists. The value of the minimum field of the SOA record and the TTL of the SOA itself is used to establish the TTL for the negative answer.

A reverse DNS lookup is a query of the DNS for domain names when the IP address is known. Multiple domain names may be associated with an IP address. The DNS stores IP addresses in the form of domain names as specially formatted names in pointer (PTR) records within the infrastructure top-level domain arpa. For IPv4, the domain is in-addr.arpa. For IPv6, the reverse lookup domain is ip6.arpa. The IP address is represented as a name in reverse-ordered octet representation for IPv4, and reverse-ordered nibble representation for IPv6.

When performing a reverse lookup, the DNS client converts the address into these formats before querying the name for a PTR record following the delegation chain as for any DNS query. For example, assuming the IPv4 address 208.80.152.2 is assigned to Wikimedia, it is represented as a DNS name in reverse order: 2.152.80.208.in-addr.arpa. When the DNS resolver gets a pointer (PTR) request, it begins by querying the root servers, which point to the servers of American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) for the 208.in-addr.arpa zone. ARIN's servers delegate 152.80.208.in-addr.arpa to Wikimedia to which the resolver sends another query for 2.152.80.208.in-addr.arpa, which results in an authoritative response.

DNS resolution sequence

Users generally do not communicate directly with a DNS resolver. Instead DNS resolution takes place transparently in applications such as web browsers, e-mail clients, and other Internet applications. When an application makes a request that requires a domain name lookup, such programs send a resolution request to the DNS resolver in the local operating system, which in turn handles the communications required.

The DNS resolver will almost invariably have a cache (see above) containing recent lookups. If the cache can provide the answer to the request, the resolver will return the value in the cache to the program that made the request. If the cache does not contain the answer, the resolver will send the request to one or more designated DNS servers. In the case of most home users, the Internet service provider to which the machine connects will usually supply this DNS server: such a user will either have configured that server's address manually or allowed DHCP to set it; however, where systems administrators have configured systems to use their own DNS servers, their DNS resolvers point to separately maintained name servers of the organization. In any event, the name server thus queried will follow the process outlined above, until it either successfully finds a result or does not. It then returns its results to the DNS resolver; assuming it has found a result, the resolver duly caches that result for future use, and hands the result back to the software which initiated the request.

Broken resolvers

Some large ISPs have configured their DNS servers to violate rules, such as by disobeying TTLs, or by indicating that a domain name does not exist just because one of its name servers does not respond.

Some applications such as web browsers maintain an internal DNS cache to avoid repeated lookups via the network. This practice can add extra difficulty when debugging DNS issues as it obscures the history of such data. These caches typically use very short caching times on the order of one minute.

Internet Explorer represents a notable exception: versions up to IE 3.x cache DNS records for 24 hours by default. Internet Explorer 4.x and later versions (up to IE 8) decrease the default timeout value to half an hour, which may be changed by modifying the default configuration.

When Google Chrome detects issues with the DNS server it displays a specific error message.

The Domain Name System includes several other functions and features.

Hostnames and IP addresses are not required to match in a one-to-one relationship. Multiple hostnames may correspond to a single IP address, which is useful in virtual hosting, in which many web sites are served from a single host. Alternatively, a single hostname may resolve to many IP addresses to facilitate fault tolerance and load distribution to multiple server instances across an enterprise or the global Internet.

DNS serves other purposes in addition to translating names to IP addresses. For instance, mail transfer agents use DNS to find the best mail server to deliver e-mail: An MX record provides a mapping between a domain and a mail exchanger; this can provide an additional layer of fault tolerance and load distribution.

The DNS is used for efficient storage and distribution of IP addresses of blacklisted email hosts. A common method is to place the IP address of the subject host into the sub-domain of a higher level domain name, and to resolve that name to a record that indicates a positive or a negative indication.

For example:

The address 102.3.4.5 is blacklisted. It points to 5.4.3.102.blacklist.example, which resolves to 127.0.0.1.

The address 102.3.4.6 is not blacklisted and points to 6.4.3.102.blacklist.example. This hostname is either not configured, or resolves to 127.0.0.2.

E-mail servers can query blacklist.example to find out if a specific host connecting to them is in the blacklist. Many of such blacklists, either subscription-based or free of cost, are available for use by email administrators and anti-spam software.

To provide resilience in the event of computer or network failure, multiple DNS servers are usually provided for coverage of each domain. At the top level of global DNS, thirteen groups of root name servers exist, with additional "copies" of them distributed worldwide via anycast addressing.

Dynamic DNS (DDNS) updates a DNS server with a client IP address on-the-fly, for example, when moving between ISPs or mobile hot spots, or when the IP address changes administratively.

The DNS protocol uses two types of DNS messages, queries and responses; both have the same format. Each message consists of a header and four sections: question, answer, authority, and an additional space. A header field ( flags) controls the content of these four sections.

The header section consists of the following fields: Identification, Flags, Number of questions, Number of answers, Number of authority resource records (RRs), and Number of additional RRs. Each field is 16 bits long, and appears in the order given. The identification field is used to match responses with queries. The flag field consists of sub-fields as follows:

After the flag, the header ends with four 16-bit integers which contain the number of records in each of the sections that follow, in the same order.

The question section has a simpler format than the resource record format used in the other sections. Each question record (there is usually just one in the section) contains the following fields:

The domain name is broken into discrete labels which are concatenated; each label is prefixed by the length of that label.

The Domain Name System specifies a database of information elements for network resources. The types of information elements are categorized and organized with a list of DNS record types, the resource records (RRs). Each record has a type (name and number), an expiration time ( time to live), a class, and type-specific data. Resource records of the same type are described as a resource record set (RRset), having no special ordering. DNS resolvers return the entire set upon query, but servers may implement round-robin ordering to achieve load balancing. In contrast, the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) work on the complete set of resource record in canonical order.

When sent over an Internet Protocol network, all records use the common format specified in RFC 1035:

NAME is the fully qualified domain name of the node in the tree[clarification needed ]. On the wire, the name may be shortened using label compression where ends of domain names mentioned earlier in the packet can be substituted for the end of the current domain name.

TYPE is the record type. It indicates the format of the data and it gives a hint of its intended use. For example, the A record is used to translate from a domain name to an IPv4 address, the NS record lists which name servers can answer lookups on a DNS zone, and the MX record specifies the mail server used to handle mail for a domain specified in an e-mail address.

RDATA is data of type-specific relevance, such as the IP address for address records, or the priority and hostname for MX records. Well known record types may use label compression in the RDATA field, but "unknown" record types must not (RFC 3597).

The CLASS of a record is set to IN (for Internet) for common DNS records involving Internet hostnames, servers, or IP addresses. In addition, the classes Chaos (CH) and Hesiod (HS) exist. Each class is an independent name space with potentially different delegations of DNS zones.

In addition to resource records defined in a zone file, the domain name system also defines several request types that are used only in communication with other DNS nodes ( on the wire), such as when performing zone transfers (AXFR/IXFR) or for EDNS (OPT).

The domain name system supports wildcard DNS records which specify names that start with the asterisk label, '*', e.g., *.example. DNS records belonging to wildcard domain names specify rules for generating resource records within a single DNS zone by substituting whole labels with matching components of the query name, including any specified descendants. For example, in the following configuration, the DNS zone x.example specifies that all subdomains, including subdomains of subdomains, of x.example use the mail exchanger (MX) a.x.example. The A record for a.x.example is needed to specify the mail exchanger IP address. As this has the result of excluding this domain name and its subdomains from the wildcard matches, an additional MX record for the subdomain a.x.example, as well as a wildcarded MX record for all of its subdomains, must also be defined in the DNS zone.

The role of wildcard records was refined in RFC 4592, because the original definition in RFC 1034 was incomplete and resulted in misinterpretations by implementers.

The original DNS protocol had limited provisions for extension with new features. In 1999, Paul Vixie published in RFC 2671 (superseded by RFC 6891) an extension mechanism, called Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS) that introduced optional protocol elements without increasing overhead when not in use. This was accomplished through the OPT pseudo-resource record that only exists in wire transmissions of the protocol, but not in any zone files. Initial extensions were also suggested (EDNS0), such as increasing the DNS message size in UDP datagrams.

Dynamic DNS updates use the UPDATE DNS opcode to add or remove resource records dynamically from a zone database maintained on an authoritative DNS server. The feature is described in RFC 2136. This facility is useful to register network clients into the DNS when they boot or become otherwise available on the network. As a booting client may be assigned a different IP address each time from a DHCP server, it is not possible to provide static DNS assignments for such clients.

From the time of its origin in 1983 the DNS has used the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) for transport over IP. Its limitations have motivated numerous protocol developments for reliability, security, privacy, and other criteria, in the following decades.

DNS over UDP/53 (Do53)

UDP reserves port number 53 for servers listening to queries. Such queries consist of a clear-text request sent in a single UDP packet from the client, responded to with a clear-text reply sent in a single UDP packet from the server. When the length of the answer exceeds 512 bytes and both client and server support Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS), larger UDP packets may be used. Use of DNS over UDP is limited by, among other things, its lack of transport-layer encryption, authentication, reliable delivery, and message length.

DNS over TCP/53 (Do53/TCP)

In 1989, RFC 1123 specified optional Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) transport for DNS queries, replies and, particularly, zone transfers. Via fragmentation of long replies, TCP allows longer responses, reliable delivery, and re-use of long-lived connections between clients and servers.

DNS over TLS (DoT)

DNS over TLS emerged as an IETF standard for encrypted DNS in 2016, utilizing Transport Layer Security (TLS) to protect the entire connection, rather than just the DNS payload. DoT servers listen on TCP port 853. RFC 7858 specifies that opportunistic encryption and authenticated encryption may be supported, but did not make either server or client authentication mandatory.

DNS over HTTPS (DoH)

DNS over HTTPS was developed as a competing standard for DNS query transport in 2018, tunneling DNS query data over HTTPS, which transports HTTP over TLS. DoH was promoted as a more web-friendly alternative to DNS since, like DNSCrypt, it uses TCP port 443, and thus looks similar to web traffic, though they are easily differentiable in practice.

Oblivious DNS (ODNS) and Oblivious DoH (ODoH)

Oblivious DNS (ODNS) was invented and implemented by researchers at Princeton University and the University of Chicago as an extension to unencrypted DNS, before DoH was standardized and widely deployed. Apple and Cloudflare subsequently deployed the technology in the context of DoH, as Oblivious DoH (ODoH). ODoH combines ingress/egress separation (invented in ODNS) with DoH's HTTPS tunneling and TLS transport-layer encryption in a single protocol.

DNS over TOR

DNS may be run over virtual private networks (VPNs) and tunneling protocols. A use which has become common since 2019 to warrant its own frequently used acronym is DNS over Tor. The privacy gains of Oblivious DNS can be garnered through the use of the preexisting Tor network of ingress and egress nodes, paired with the transport-layer encryption provided by TLS.

DNS over QUIC (DoQ)

RFC 9250 by the Internet Engineering Task Force describes DNS over QUIC.

DNSCrypt

The DNSCrypt protocol, which was developed in 2011 outside the IETF standards framework, introduced DNS encryption on the downstream side of recursive resolvers, wherein clients encrypt query payloads using servers' public keys, which are published in the DNS (rather than relying upon third-party certificate authorities) and which may in turn be protected by DNSSEC signatures. DNSCrypt uses either TCP or UDP port 443, the same port as HTTPS encrypted web traffic. This introduced not only privacy regarding the content of the query, but also a significant measure of firewall-traversal capability. In 2019, DNSCrypt was further extended to support an "anonymized" mode, similar to the proposed "Oblivious DNS," in which an ingress node receives a query which has been encrypted with the public key of a different server, and relays it to that server, which acts as an egress node, performing the recursive resolution. Privacy of user/query pairs is created, since the ingress node does not know the content of the query, while the egress nodes does not know the identity of the client. DNSCrypt was first implemented in production by OpenDNS in December 2011. There are several free and open source software implementations that additionally integrate ODoH. It is available for a variety of operating systems, including Unix, Apple iOS, Linux, Android, and MS Windows.

Originally, security concerns were not major design considerations for DNS software or any software for deployment on the early Internet, as the network was not open for participation by the general public. However, the expansion of the Internet into the commercial sector in the 1990s changed the requirements for security measures to protect data integrity and user authentication.

Several vulnerability issues were discovered and exploited by malicious users. One such issue is DNS cache poisoning, in which data is distributed to caching resolvers under the pretense of being an authoritative origin server, thereby polluting the data store with potentially false information and long expiration times (time-to-live). Subsequently, legitimate application requests may be redirected to network hosts operated with malicious intent.

DNS responses traditionally do not have a cryptographic signature, leading to many attack possibilities; the Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) modify DNS to add support for cryptographically signed responses. DNSCurve has been proposed as an alternative to DNSSEC. Other extensions, such as TSIG, add support for cryptographic authentication between trusted peers and are commonly used to authorize zone transfer or dynamic update operations.

Some domain names may be used to achieve spoofing effects. For example, paypal.com and paypa1.com are different names, yet users may be unable to distinguish them in a graphical user interface depending on the user's chosen typeface. In many fonts the letter l and the numeral 1 look very similar or even identical. This problem, known as the IDN homograph attack, is acute in systems that support internationalized domain names, as many character codes in ISO 10646 may appear identical on typical computer screens. This vulnerability is occasionally exploited in phishing.

Techniques such as forward-confirmed reverse DNS can also be used to help validate DNS results.

DNS can also "leak" from otherwise secure or private connections, if attention is not paid to their configuration, and at times DNS has been used to bypass firewalls by malicious persons, and exfiltrate data, since it is often seen as innocuous.

Originally designed as a public, hierarchical, distributed and heavily cached database, DNS protocol has no confidentiality controls. User queries and nameserver responses are being sent unencrypted which enables network packet sniffing, DNS hijacking, DNS cache poisoning and man-in-the-middle attacks. This deficiency is commonly used by cybercriminals and network operators for marketing purposes, user authentication on captive portals and censorship.

User privacy is further exposed by proposals for increasing the level of client IP information in DNS queries (RFC 7871) for the benefit of Content Delivery Networks.

The main approaches that are in use to counter privacy issues with DNS:

VPNs, which move DNS resolution to the VPN operator and hide user traffic from local ISP,

Tor, which replaces traditional DNS resolution with anonymous .onion domains, hiding both name resolution and user traffic behind onion routing counter-surveillance,

Proxies and public DNS servers, which move the actual DNS resolution to a third-party provider, who usually promises little or no request logging and optional added features, such as DNS-level advertisement or pornography blocking.
Public DNS servers can be queried using traditional DNS protocol, in which case they provide no protection from local surveillance, or DNS over HTTPS, DNS over TLS and DNSCrypt, which do provide such protection

Solutions preventing DNS inspection by local network operator are criticized for thwarting corporate network security policies and Internet censorship. They are also criticized from a privacy point of view, as giving away the DNS resolution to the hands of a small number of companies known for monetizing user traffic and for centralizing DNS name resolution, which is generally perceived as harmful for the Internet.

Google is the dominant provider of the platform in Android, the browser in Chrome, and the DNS resolver in the 8.8.8.8 service. Would this scenario be a case of a single corporate entity being in a position of overarching control of the entire namespace of the Internet? Netflix already fielded an app that used its own DNS resolution mechanism independent of the platform upon which the app was running. What if the Facebook app included DoH? What if Apple's iOS used a DoH-resolution mechanism to bypass local DNS resolution and steer all DNS queries from Apple's platforms to a set of Apple-operated name resolvers?

-  DNS Privacy and the IETF

The right to use a domain name is delegated by domain name registrars which are accredited by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) or other organizations such as OpenNIC, that are charged with overseeing the name and number systems of the Internet. In addition to ICANN, each top-level domain (TLD) is maintained and serviced technically by an administrative organization, operating a registry. A registry is responsible for operating the database of names within its authoritative zone, although the term is most often used for TLDs. A registrant is a person or organization who asked for domain registration. The registry receives registration information from each domain name registrar, which is authorized (accredited) to assign names in the corresponding zone and publishes the information using the WHOIS protocol. As of 2015, usage of RDAP is being considered.

ICANN publishes the complete list of TLDs, TLD registries, and domain name registrars. Registrant information associated with domain names is maintained in an online database accessible with the WHOIS service. For most of the more than 290 country code top-level domains (ccTLDs), the domain registries maintain the WHOIS (Registrant, name servers, expiration dates, etc.) information. For instance, DENIC, Germany NIC, holds the DE domain data. From about 2001, most Generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries have adopted this so-called thick registry approach, i.e. keeping the WHOIS data in central registries instead of registrar databases.

For top-level domains on COM and NET, a thin registry model is used. The domain registry (e.g., GoDaddy, BigRock and PDR, VeriSign, etc., etc.) holds basic WHOIS data (i.e., registrar and name servers, etc.). Organizations, or registrants using ORG on the other hand, are on the Public Interest Registry exclusively.

Some domain name registries, often called network information centers (NIC), also function as registrars to end-users, in addition to providing access to the WHOIS datasets. The top-level domain registries, such as for the domains COM, NET, and ORG use a registry-registrar model consisting of many domain name registrars. In this method of management, the registry only manages the domain name database and the relationship with the registrars. The registrants (users of a domain name) are customers of the registrar, in some cases through additional subcontracting of resellers.

The Domain Name System is defined by Request for Comments (RFC) documents published by the Internet Engineering Task Force ( Internet standards). The following is a list of RFCs that define the DNS protocol.

These RFCs are advisory in nature, but may provide useful information despite defining neither a standard or BCP. (RFC 1796)

These RFCs have an official status of Unknown, but due to their age are not clearly labeled as such.

RFC 920, Domain Requirements - Specified original top-level domains

RFC 1032, Domain Administrators Guide

RFC 1033, Domain Administrators Operations Guide

RFC 1101, DNS Encodings of Network Names and Other Types

1. ^ Wu, Hao; Dang, Xianglei; Wang, Lidong; He, Longtao (2016). "Information fusion‐based method for distributed domain name system cache poisoning attack detection and identification". IET Information Security. 10 (1): 37-44. doi:10.1049/iet-ifs.2014.0386. ISSN 1751-8717. S2CID 45091791.

2. RFC 781, ^ Internet Protocol - DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification, Information Sciences Institute, J. Postel (Ed.), The Internet Society (September 1981)

3. J. Dilley, B. Maggs, J. Parikh, H. Prokop, R. Sitaraman, and B. Weihl. ^ "Globally Distributed Content Delivery, IEEE Internet Computing, September/October 2002, pp. 50-58" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-04-17.

4. ^ Nygren., E.; Sitaraman R. K.; Sun, J. (2010). "The Akamai Network: A Platform for High-Performance Internet Applications" (PDF). ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review. 44 (3): 2-19. doi:10.1145/1842733.1842736. S2CID 207181702. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2010-12-02.

5. ^ RFC 3467, "Role of the Domain Name System (DNS)", J.C. Klensin, J. Klensin (February 2003).

6. ^ IEEE Annals [3B2-9] man2011030074.3d 29/7/011 11:54 Page 74

7. "Why Does the Net Still Work on Christmas? Paul Mockapetris - Internet Hall of Fame". internethalloffame.org. 23 July 2012.

8. ^ Elizabeth Feinler, IEEE Annals, 3B2-9 man2011030074.3d 29/7/011 11:54 Page 74

9. ^ Terry, Douglas B.; et al. (June 12-15, 1984). "The Berkeley Internet Name Domain Server". Summer Conference, Salt Lake City 1984: Proceedings. USENIX Association Software Tools Users Group. pp. 23-31.

10. Paul Mockapetris (November 1987). "How the database is divided into zones". Domain Names - Domain Concepts and Facilities. IETF. sec. 4.2. doi:10.17487/RFC1034. RFC 1034.

11. ^ Lindsay, David (2007). International Domain Name Law: ICANN and the UDRP. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-84113-584-7.

12. ^ Network Working Group of the IETF, January 2006, RFC 4343: Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification

13. RFC 3696, Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of Names, J. Klensin

14. ^ Nemeth, Evi; Snyder, Garth; Hein, Trent R. (2006-10-30). Linux Administration Handbook. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 978-0-13-700275-7.

15. ^ Bissyande, Tegawendé F.; Sie, Oumarou (2017-10-09). e-Infrastructure and e-Services for Developing Countries: 8th International Conference, AFRICOMM 2016, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, December 6-7, 2016, Proceedings. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-66742-3.

16. ^ Ben Anderson (7 September 2011). "Ben Anderson: Why Web Browser DNS Caching Can Be A Bad Thing".

17. ^ James F. Kurose and Keith W. Ross, Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach, 6th ed. Essex, England: Pearson Educ. Limited, 2012

18. RFC 5395, ^ Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations, D. Eastlake 3rd (November 2008), Section 3

19. RFC 5395, ^ Domain Name System (DNS) IANA Considerations, D. Eastlake 3rd (November 2008), p. 11

20. RFC 4592, The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name System, E. Lewis (July 2006)

21. ^ Csikor, Levente; Divakaran, Dinil Mon (February 2021). "Privacy of DNS over HTTPS: Requiem for a Dream?" (PDF). National University of Singapore. We investigate whether DoH traffic is distinguishable from encrypted Web traffic. To this end, we train a machine learning model to classify HTTPS traffic as either Web or DoH. With our DoH identification model in place, we show that an authoritarian ISP can identify ≈97.4% of the DoH packets correctly while only misclassifying 1 in 10,000 Web packets.

22. ^ Schmitt, Paul; Edmundson, Anne; Feamster, Nick (2019). "Oblivious DNS: Practical Privacy for DNS Queries" (PDF). Privacy Enhancing Technologies. 2019 (2): 228-244. arXiv:. doi:10.2478/popets-2019-0028. S2CID 44126163. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-01-21.

23. ^ Muffett, Alec (February 2021). ""No Port 53, Who Dis?" A Year of DNS over HTTPS over Tor" (PDF). Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-03-21. DNS over HTTPS (DoH) obviates many but not all of the risks, and its transport protocol (i.e. HTTPS) raises concerns of privacy due to (e.g.) 'cookies.' The Tor Network exists to provide TCP circuits with some freedom from tracking, surveillance, and blocking. Thus: In combination with Tor, DoH, and the principle of "Don't Do That, Then" (DDTT) to mitigate request fingerprinting, I describe DNS over HTTPS over Tor (DoHoT).

24. ^ Ulevitch, David (6 December 2011). "DNSCrypt - Critical, fundamental, and about time". Cisco Umbrella. Archived from the original on 1 July 2020.

25. ^ Herzberg, Amir; Shulman, Haya (2014-01-01). "Retrofitting Security into Network Protocols: The Case of DNSSEC". IEEE Internet Computing. 18 (1): 66-71. doi:10.1109/MIC.2014.14. ISSN 1089-7801. S2CID 12230888.

26. APWG. "Global Phishing Survey: Domain Name Use and Trends in 1H2010." ^ 10/15/2010 apwg.org Archived 2012-10-03 at the Wayback Machine

27. Huston, Geoff (July 2019). "DNS Privacy and the IETF" (PDF). The Internet Protocol Journal. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-09-30.

28. ^ "Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Operational Profile for gTLD Registries and Registrars". ICANN. 3 December 2015. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Domain Name System ( DNS) is a hierarchical and distributed naming system for computers, services, and other resources in the Internet or other Internet Protocol (IP) networks. It associates various information with domain names (identification strings) assigned to each of the associated entities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
El protocolo TCP divide la información en paquetes y los envía por el camino más rápido, lo cual garantiza que los paquetes lleguen correctamente

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Los routers son equipos que ponen en contacto las distintas redes, de forma que, tras analizar los paquetes, los distribuyen de manera más eficiente