- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:57:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: dd@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org (WAI Working Group), lynx-dev@sig.net
From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org> OK, I liked the mailto extension proposal too (http://www.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-mailto-url-01.txt) but I think authors using these extensions should be made aware of the incompatibility with browsers that do not support them. In other word a mailto:dd@w3.org?subject:foo will either produce an error on the browser side or later bounce if my browser doesn't parse the ?header part correctly. As a rule of thumb, it is a good idea to always provide a separate "simple* mailto URL as well (much like before the time mailto itself was supported widely, people were asked to provide FORM alternative of mailto URL) Both these suggestions are improvements, friendly amendments. The error modes you suggest are possible but not guaranteed. Extension-unaware browsers may have been programmed well and ignore the parts of the URL that they do not comprehend. And they should offer the user the opportunity to confirm/deny the headers picked up out of the mailto: which could reduce bounces. But after all that is said, it is still a good idea to offer the basic alternative. -- Al Gilman
Received on Thursday, 15 May 1997 08:57:04 UTC