Re: 'email' element type

Kevin Smith wrote to <mailto:www-html@w3.org> on 8 April 2003 in "Re:
'email' element type"
(<mid:A5852766-69C7-11D7-807D-0030654A63DE@tatnet.com>):

> An EMAIL (or URI) element is certainly as useful as VAR or KBD,
> and would allow authors to mark up an address regardless of
> whether it's 'linked'.

I agree that there is some utility there. A URI-designating element type
would be better than a restricted e-mail-designating element type. Still
better would be an element type that allowed any syntax in the content.
Equivalence to URIs could be handled through an optional attribute. We could
call the element type 'mri' for "machine-readable identifier". Consider the
following examples.

<mri uri="mailto:user@example.org" title="Some user's
mailbox">user@example.org</mri>

<mri uri="file://localhost/etc/" title="Local directory">/etc</mri>

<mri uri="file://localhost/Macintosh%20HD/" title="Local disk
volume">Macintosh HD:</mri>

<mri title="Character by name">Latin capital letter A</mri>

<mri title="Character by number">U+0041</mri>

It would be acceptable, too, to make the content a genuine URI, as in the
following example.

<mri uri="mailto:user@example.org" title="Some user's
mailbox">mailto:user@example.org</mri>

> Besides, if HREF is to be a common attribute, wrapping an email
> address in <a> tags just to create a link is no more valid than
> using <span href="mailto:foo@example.com">.

I agree. I fail to see how this legitimizes or supports an
e-mail-designating element type.

-- 
Etan Wexler <mailto:ewexler@stickdog.com>

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 20:06:22 UTC