- From: Braden N. McDaniel <braden@shadow.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:13:53 -0500
- To: "Ann Navarro" <ann@webgeek.com>, "Bill Rhodes" <wrhodes@qualcomm.com>, "Andreas Thorstensson" <andy@spray.se>, "'Francesca Galera Molina'" <ccbq8@blues.uab.es>, <www-html@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf > Of Ann Navarro > Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 9:44 AM > To: Bill Rhodes; Andreas Thorstensson; 'Francesca Galera Molina'; > www-html@w3.org > Subject: RE: Mailto > > > Note, however, that presence in an RFC does not equate to "valid HTML" This is a URI syntax issue. HTML validity is entirely orthogonal. > nor > to proper handling by common browser/email client combinations. True. But "common browser/email client combinations" will probably handle these extensions just fine. It's the older, less-common software that might have difficulty. Braden
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 1999 13:16:26 UTC