> Really? This has my quite surprised, as the second one is actually the
> proposed standard according to RFC 1738. It is supposed give the UAs a
> better chance of distinguishing between URLs and other data structures
> in plain text. It is also supposed to work for broken lines, so this
> URL should be clickable: <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/
> rfc1738.html>. Dunno if it works, though.
It doesn't. Comments form others would be good. Although I always like a
sample size of one (if the sample includes me) it is not very scientific.
[Followup set to lugnet.publish only, as I can't see why this belongs in lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade] (...) Actually, despite what I said earlier, C) is the most convenient for me, because it's the easiest to select in an xterm (just double-click). (...) (26 years ago, 3-Dec-98, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.publish)
(...) All the links in the above posts work in my browser, Commnicator 4.5. Dunno wich is stadard though.. --Justin (26 years ago, 4-Dec-98, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.publish)
Linc Smith wrote in message ... :Fredrik Glöckner wrote in message ... : :>Really? This has my quite surprised, as the second one is actually the :>proposed standard according to RFC 1738. It is supposed give the UAs a :>better chance of (...) (26 years ago, 4-Dec-98, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.publish)
(...) It works for me (Gnus), but it fails to work when it has been quoted, so it's probably not a good idea, anyway. (...) I'd say a browser not capable of understanding A is not RFC 1738 compliant, and should be fixed. However, I normally write (...) (26 years ago, 4-Dec-98, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.publish)
(...) Really? This has my quite surprised, as the second one is actually the proposed standard according to RFC 1738. It is supposed give the UAs a better chance of distinguishing between URLs and other data structures in plain text. It is also (...) (26 years ago, 3-Dec-98, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, lugnet.publish)
