Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote
other variants feel out of scope I guess.
That makes sense. Re-reading the rfc I'm still not entirely clear (numbered bullets added): Also note that it is syntactically valid to specify both <to> and an <hfname> whose value is "to". That is, #1 <mailto:addr1@an.example,addr2@an.example> is equivalent to #2 <mailto:?to=addr1@an.example,addr2@an.example> is equivalent to #3 <mailto:addr1@an.example?to=addr2@an.example> However, the latter form is NOT RECOMMENDED because different user agents handle this case differently. In particular, some existing clients ignore "to" <hfvalue>s. Is anyone clear whether "latter" and the warning that "to" <hfvalue>s may be ignored refers to just #3 or #2 as well? ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html