Re: 'email' element type

But, isn't "mailto:" kind of a fake URI? I mean it doesn't really 
describe a protocol and a link so much as tell a browser to use an 
email program and stick something in the To: box.

I, for one, hate having to type email addresses twice, once in the link 
and once in the text. (I know, I'm lazy.)

The other obnoxious thing about using href for mailto is that it's not 
really a semantic link. Most (all?) other links lead to information. 
mailto is a roundabout way of asking for information, namely the email 
you want to send to the address you just clicked on. (And don't get me 
started on people who don't write email addresses in the text of their 
mailto: links so that I click on what I think is hypertext and have my 
email program open up when I really wouldn't have clicked it if I'd 
known what I was in for. Help links are major offenders in this regard.)

Yes, it would complicate things, and it's probably unnecessary. But 
it's not a poor substitute at all.

Todd


On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 04:31  AM, Etan Wexler wrote:

>
> Jim Dabell wrote to <mailto:www-html@w3.org> on 7 April 2003 in "Re:
> [XHTML2] Unicode line and paragraph separators"
> (<mid:200304072045.28173.jim-www-html@jimdabell.com>):
>
>> there are other elements that could be included that would be far
>> more popular and appropriate for the medium (what about
>> <email>jim@example.com</email>?).
>
> The proposed 'email' element type is just a poor substitute for 
> generalized
> linking methods. We already have 'mailto' URIs and link elements.
>
> -- 
> Etan Wexler <mailto:ewexler@stickdog.com>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 08:13:15 UTC