Re: "Mailto" Command

Chad Owen Yoshikawa (chad@CS.Berkeley.EDU)
Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:30:28 -0700 (PDT)


From: Chad Owen Yoshikawa <chad@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Message-Id: <199704100030.RAA15569@whenever.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: "Mailto" Command
To: james@frutiger.staffs.ac.uk (James Berriman)
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <v02130502af71536b1451@[158.152.62.135]> from "James Berriman" at Apr 10, 97 01:10:43 am

> 
> I find mailto: forms genuinely useful. The real problem with mailto: forms=
>  is that there is no default METHOD (or indeed any METHOD) currently defined=
>  for the mailto: ACTION.
> 
> GET and POST are part of the HTTP spec, which is not intended to cover mail =
> transport.
> 
...
> 
> The potential exists to define METHODs relevant to mail transport (and to=
>  codify the existing implementation of POST). So for those of us who do want=
>  to implement mailto: forms, where is the appropriate forum to discuss this?
> 

I'd like to see these HTTP-references removed from the DTD, e.g.
do something like replace the GET/POST options of the method attribute
of the form with something more general like CDATA, and add another
attribute like 'PROTOCOL' which would  indicate 'mail', 'http', etc.

The reason is that forms can be submitted to http, mail, and many other
protocols.  For example, I'm building something where forms can
be submitted to any protocol (e.g. service://) and GET|POST doesn't
make any sense in this context.  Given something more general, I could
tag forms with protocol specific information.

Cheers,

-Chad Yoshikawa

-- 
Finger me for my pgp public key
Today's random buzzword: group cryptography