Re: "Mailto" Command

Carl Morris (msftrncs@htcnet.com)
Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:50:04 -0500


Message-Id: <199704071652.LAA05151@inet.htcnet.com>
From: "Carl Morris" <msftrncs@htcnet.com>
To: "WWW HTML List" <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: "Mailto" Command
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:50:04 -0500

> And I blame no one!  Since when should a WWW form not be returned to
> the WWW server that originally served it????

> At least as early as 1993, when HTML + and forms were first being
> kicked around:

Not an answer, if a company sends you a form, who do you send it back to. 
Usually them!!!!  Specifically, if you get a form in the mail, you usually
mail it back.  There is no difference here.  If a WWW server sends the
form, it should go back to the WWW server or at least via HTTP to another
server.  If you get a form in the e-mail, then the answer should be
returned via e-mail.  Its called "it just plain makes sense".

>  Technically it is
> incorrect to send the form anywhere but the server that served it.

> Incorrect with respect to what? Your opinion?

Logic...

>  The
> problem is all too common though, many people place forms in their
> pages that go back to WEBCRAWLER or other search engines.

In my opinion (and as I recall, Dave Raggett, Tony Sanders, Marc A,
and the other designers of forms) this is a feature, not a bug.

No,  it is the problem that has caused people to think that a form in a WWW
page can be answered via e-mail.  I do not answer WWW forms via e-mail!!!! 
(mostly because it doesn't work, and it shows that the author of the form
is lazy, its also usually a sign that the form will not be answered in a
quality fashion, why answer it!)

You may think its nice to have options.  When those options result in more
hassles to the end users, then they're "optional" status has worn thin.  I
find e-mail returned forms to be a hassle, and I know from experience that
others have too.