| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
> The relevant RFC is RFC1738 in the appendix. Alas, most people find
> the <URL:url> syntax to be ugly and simplify it to simply <url>. This
> is one of those situations where the RFC says X, people do Y, and the
> programmers choose to bow to the defacto standard Y.
> [...]
> Unfortunately, it did not anticipate the defacto standard of how to
> encode URL's into E-mail to not follow the official standard in the
> RFC1738 appendix.
What an strange and unfortunate outcome.
> [...]
> The issues are there. If you do some Google searches with works like
> "URL", "email", and "angle brackets" you will run across plenty of
> people recommend enclosing URL's in angle brackets and they do not
> mention <URL:url> syntax.
>
> Here's some URL's:
>
> <http://www.webfoot.com/advice/email.format.html?Email>
> <http://gmunch.home.pipeline.com/typo-L/faq/faq.htm>
> <http://www.mantex.co.uk/samples/elec.htm>
> <http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2003-March/002211.html>
Thanks for the links.
> I think it may be time to do a little FTX redesign, since the mail
> readers and news readers that already implement angle bracketed URL's
> are extremely unlikely to change.
I think you're right. Eudora isn't known for strict adherence to SMTP/NNTP
standards, but Mozilla is a totally different story. If this is
confusing a modern-day Mozilla, that's a Bad Thing, and I agree with you
about the unlikelihood the behavior changing.
When the FTX syntax was worked out back in 1999, we were looking at
originally it as one way to format FAQ entries to be compatible with
NNTP and SMTP messages (which is how the <url label> format came about).
If it were revised/redesigned to be more compatible with the emerging
popular behavior of <url>, we could still implement a link label via some
syntactical incarnation before or after the <url>. Some options:
<url> (label)
<url> [label]
<url> {label}
Those are assuming that {} and [] are dispensed with as italics and boldface and
replaced by // and **, respectively.
Other options?
How do other simple text extensions/formatters write a link label? Anybody seen
it done in an elegant way?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: link labels
|
| (...) Actually, back in 1994, which is when RFC1738 was written, there was all sorts of discussion about URN's (Universal Resource Names), URI's (Univesal Resource Identifiers), and URL's (Universal Resource Locators). The concept is that a URN (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: link labels
|
| Todd: (...) Yes. Mozilla does. I'm 99% sure that Eudora does as well. I'm quite sure that there are many others. Since I do not run Microsoft products, I have no idea what they do. (...) The relevant RFC is RFC1738 in the appendix. Alas, most people (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
