W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Mailto misnamed not misdesigned (Was: Hyperlinks depend on GET (was: Re: REST and the Web))

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 20:39:31 -0800
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@apache.org>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, "'Paul Prescod'" <paul@prescod.net>, <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001b01c1ddee$375903a0$6ace8642@larrypad>
There were discussions about 'mailto' on the URI
list from 1995 through 1998; note, for example, the
single mailbox & 'resource' theory in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/1997Jan/0003.html 
as opposed to the text in the final RFC.

RFC 2368 was written to correspond to the practice
of "mailto", rather than the theory of URIs which
has them always identifying resources. A mailto with
multiple targets and a "subject" line isn't a very
good resource identifier, but it works in hrefs.
An unadorned "mailto" with a single mailbox identifier
can also work as a resource identifier.

So practice doesn't match theory, and trying to
fit it is pretty unsatisfactory:
I don't think it's worth it to try to shoehorn
"mailto:bob@example.org,mary@example.com" into the
theory that URIs _always_ identify resources. That one
doesn't, and making up a story about it doesn't help
out much.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2002 23:41:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:30 GMT