Re: Non-http: methods in CSS URL()

Your subject is confused.  mailto: is a scheme, and what you are really
talking about is the content, as file: and ftp: would, for example, be
just as good as http:, but audio/basic might be problematic.

> What would list members expect to be the
> result of the following code fragment ?

The same as for an img element using the same uri, but with the image
clipped to the size of a single space.  I would hope, in the case of
HTTP schemes, that the Accept header would only include image types,
although some authors might want to include dynamic SVG and Flash.

> Internet Explorer (V6) opens an e-mail window,

Clearly broken, but garbage in garbage out, so probably better treated
as a "don't care" case.  Embedding the e-mail application under the 
span might be borderline correct.

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 22:29:13 UTC