To: email@example.com Cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, In-Reply-To: Al Gilman's message of Tue, 21 Nov 1995 21:13:21 -0800 <9511220513.AA08946@severn.wash.inmet.com> Subject: Re: mailserver: vs. expanded mailto: URL From: Larry Masinter <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <95Nov21.email@example.com> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 22:29:35 PST > Forms mode requires HTTP. Mail clients will be getting > URIs in text/HTML independently from of access to HTTP. Consider section 5.6 of RFC 1867: ================================================================ 5.6 Allow form ACTION to be "mailto:" Independent of this proposal, it would be very useful for HTML interpreting user agents to allow a ACTION in a form to be a "mailto:" URL. This seems like a good idea, with or without this proposal. Similarly, the ACTION for a HTML form which is received via mail should probably default to the "reply-to:" of the message. These two proposals would allow HTML forms to be served via HTTP servers but sent back via mail, or, alternatively, allow HTML forms to be sent by mail, filled out by HTML-aware mail recipients, and the results mailed back. ================================================================ As for Foteos Macrides' note: > In theory, at least, one could use it in a form to set the > subject, and treat the form content as the body field: > <FORM METHOD="POST" ACTION="mailserv:user@host/Form%20submission"> As I pointed out in a previous note, the BODY of the message is pretty stylized, is setting an explicit subject really an important add?