Re: Subject line in Mailto forms

Joel N. Weber II (devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
Mon, 16 Jun 1997 01:30:26 -0400


Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 01:30:26 -0400
Message-Id: <199706160530.BAA16760@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
From: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: walter@natural-innovations.com
CC: www-html@w3.org
In-reply-to: <v03102801afca56c5daaf@[205.149.180.135]> (message from Walter
Subject: Re: Subject line in Mailto forms

   X-Quote: I wasn't innocent till I got older. --WIK
   X-Calibur: Signifying that I, Arthur, was to become King of the Britons
   Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 19:41:26 -0700
   From: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>

   At 8:37p -0400 06/15/97, Joel N. Weber II wrote:
    > If only 1024 characters are supported, that's a bug, at least according
    > to the GNU coding standards.  It's not a design problem; it's a bug
    > in your client.

   I believe it's an SGML constraint...

Ugh.  There are arbitrary limits in SGML!?

    >    Perhaps a new URL scheme, say "email:"?
    >
    > I don't see how an email: scheme would buy you anything.  Old
    > clients break whether you call it email: and they totally lose;
    > and old clients break the way things are.

   So I guess the caring thing to do would be something like:

     Extended mailto: <A HREF="mailto:me@my.com?subject=hello">Easy URL</A><BR>
     Backward-compatible mailto: <A HREF="mailto:me@my.com">Hard URL</A>

   ...and that way people have a choice.

I guess.  But I be a lot of people with older browsers won't realize
exactly what their browser can and can't handle.  (I watched my
mother try to learn to use an old version of lynx within the
last few days...not a particularily positive experience...)

I think that I would avoid writing any subject at all.  I tend to
prefer avoiding features which don't degrade gracefully.

I also tend to ignore subjects so much that I don't really care what
they say...