Re: Second round for new URL scheme (mailserver)

Larry Masinter (masinter@parc.xerox.com)
Wed, 11 Jan 1995 01:07:19 PST


To: uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: sdw@lig.net's message of Wed, 11 Jan 1995 00:57:16 -0800 <95Jan11.005723pst.2763@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: Second round for new URL scheme (mailserver)
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <95Jan11.010728pst.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 01:07:19 PST

There are two issues: capabilities and syntax

One requirement for the capabilities of the 'mailserver' URL scheme is
that it be at least as capable as the "message/external-body
access-type=mail-server" outlined in RFC1521.TXT. Specifying subject
is important, but (at least by this criteria) header fields other than
subject isn't.  Being able to supply multi-line data is important.

I don't know if we have stronger requirements for "mailserver"; for
example, for fill in fields, etc., you might be better off having a
form with a ACTION="mailto:" URL.