- From: David Norris <kg9ae@geocities.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998 05:30:27 -0500
- To: <www-html@w3.org>
>> <A >> href="mailto:recipient@domain.com?subject=SUBJECT-TEXT&body=BODY-TEXT&cc=OTH >> ER-RECIPIENT&bcc=BLIND-RECIPIENT"> >As a practical advice on HTML authoring, this is dangerous >disinformation. See >http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/wdgfaq.htm#44 A form may be the 'safest' and most predictable method with a traditional mailto URI as an alternative means. I have seen many browsers ignore the extended information in mailto URIs. I have never seen a browser break on it, though. I would be curious to know which browsers break. I have tested it on Amaya, Lynx, NCSA Mosaic, Explorer 3-5, Navigator 2-5, Opera, and probably several others. I have never seen it break. It does leave out the extended information more often than not, though. Also, the working draft in question mentions that Subject, To, and Body are the only fields to be considered safe. So, you could not expect any other fields to work. When you need to rely on certain information, I would suggest a form. There are free form processing services, such as CGI-Free http://www.cgi-free.com/ >http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-fielding-uri-syntax-01.txt >Moreover, the URL itself has become invalid (404 File Not Found).hat's I believe that URI is a typo or something. It has been invalid for a long time as far as I know. The correct URI is, as you pointed out: http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-hoffman-mailto-url-05.txt ,David Norris World Wide Web - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1652/ Illusionary Web - http://illusionary.dyn.ml.org/ <-- 02:00 - 10:00 GMT Video/Audio Phone - callto:illusionary.dyn.ml.org Page via mail - 412039@pager.mirabilis.com ICQ Universal Internet Number - 412039 E-Mail - kg9ae@geocities.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 1998 06:30:33 UTC