Subject:
|
Re: urls test
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:59:52 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@MATTDM.stopspamORG
|
Viewed:
|
942 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> I avoid it by composing messages in a text editor which doesn't break words
> across 80-column boundaries. (Or in Netscape Navigator, which doesn't break
> them either.)
There was discussion on this a long time ago, but I don't remember the
result. According to RFC 1738, linebreaks and other whitespace should be ok
in <URL:...> format urls.
Amusingly, the html version of the RFC at
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1738.html> doesn't follow its own advice....
Personal note: I've decided that <http:...> is just as good as <URL:...>.
The <URL:...> form ought to be recognized, but so should <http:...>,
<ftp:...>, <news:...>, and <mailto:...>, at least.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: urls test
|
| Just an observation for Matt: I am using MS Outlook Express 5 and <http:...> does not show up as a link, neither does <ftp:...>. However: <URL:...> <news:...> and mailto:... do show up as links. One day every browser and newsreader will behave well, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: urls test
|
| (...) I avoid it by composing messages in a text editor which doesn't break words across 80-column boundaries. (Or in Netscape Navigator, which doesn't break them either.) --Todd (24 years ago, 14-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
