Re: mailto: + parameters?

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:20:29 -0400


Message-Id: <m0u9X9p-0002T4C@beach.w3.org>
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: mailto: + parameters? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:11:59 CDT."
             <01I3KR5J3XAA004RJA@SCI.WFBR.EDU> 
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:20:29 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <01I3KR5J3XAA004RJA@SCI.WFBR.EDU>, Foteos Macrides writes:
>
>	The use of ?subject=bla in mailto URLs is not "just" ignoring
>W3CofVendors "working drafts", but also flagrantly violates the IETF
>"Standards Track" specification -- and is needless, because the TITLE
>attribute can cook that soup without breaking mailto URLs or other
>clients.

Hmmm.. I wouldn't say that. This issue has been discussed at length,
and several proposals similar to mailto:foo@bar?subject=xxx have
been made. See, for example, the mailserver thread on the uri mailing list:

http://www.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&what=web&fmt=.&q=host%3Awww.acl.lanl.gov+%2Bmailserver

If something along these lines is in operation today, I'd like to
see it written up. Anybody care to write up this revision of the
mailto: URL scheme? You can write it as an IETF draft if you like,
or we can publish it as a W3C working draft.

There's been a lot of noise about revising RFC1738. I'm not sure what
exactly is going to happen along those lines.

Dan