W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Message Threads

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:47:21 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20040719103548.0593fcd8@localhost>
To: "Mark Moore" <mark.moore@notlimited.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org

Copied to the URI list for potential updates to RFC2368.

At 20:16 04/07/16 -0700, Mark Moore wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 7:19 PM

> > The In-Reply-To header is already included in the URI behind the
> > 'Respond' link on the html version of the page, at least in the
> > setup for W3C lists (lists.w3.org).
>
>I hadn't noticed that.  You are absolutely right, and that is mighty cool!
>But...
>
>
> > The question may be whether
> > this header is included by the mail software then the user
> > clicks on that link. The answer may differ for different mailers.
>
>The latest version of Microsoft Outlook definitely *doesn't* include the
>References: and In-Reply-To: headers (even though they are in the URI).
>
>Worse, section 4 of RFC2368, "Unsafe headers," specifically recommends that
>mail software should not include "unsafe" headers from mailto URL's, and
>that "Only the Subject, Keywords, and Body headers are believed to be both
>safe and useful." [1]

Can anybody involved in RFC2396 say why the list of safe/useful headers
was limited that much? It seems to make sense to me to expand that list
in a future version.


>RFC2368 goes on to say that creators of mailto URL's "cannot expect the
>resolver of a URL to understand more than the 'subject' and 'body' headers."
>
>The converse of this is that creators of mailto URL's SHOULD expect
>resolvers to understand subject and body headers.  Incidentally, Outlook
>does.


Regards,    Martin.
Received on Sunday, 18 July 2004 21:47:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:34 GMT