W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2001

Re: Can the W3C HML validaor send email when the page becomes invalid (was Re: WWW: Interoperability Crisis?)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:08:34 -0500
Message-Id: <200101222358.SAA1220018@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, Brian Kelly <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>, David Peaslee <peasleed@lanecc.edu>
At 09:25 PM 2001-01-22 +0000, Nick Kew wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Al Gilman wrote:
>
>
>> <meta name="SMTP-equiv" value="Errors-To:&ltedress&gt">
>
>That doesn't make much sense to me.  Site Valet (when not set just
>to mail to a subscriber's address) will use either of the more
>conventional
>
> <link rev="made" href="<mailto:author@domain>mailto:author@domain">
> <meta name="author" content="<mailto:author@domain>mailto:author@domain">
>
>and default to webmaster@domain as last resort.
>

Maybe it makes more sense to work on sites to all support webmaster@domain
with
content-aware filters so EARL reports will get parsed.  But the idea was
not to
replace the author info but to augment it.  If we don't make it a different
reserved term then authors are going to get it in the ear at sites where there
is someone else who should be getting that.

The idea I was exploring was to establish separate conventions for the content
point of contact and the technical (bugs) point of contact.  This is often
done
in visible plain links, does it make sense to try to promulgate a common
practice?  From: and Errors-To: are two distinct things in mail headers.  You
shouldn't have to default to <webmaster@domain> the webmaster should have a
machine-interpretable way to tell you just where they want such mail to go. 
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 18:59:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:38 GMT