I have a ZnUrl subclass MailtoUrl. It was working for simple cases, but then I realized that ZnUrl assumes a single username. At first, I figured maybe mailto was such a specialized case that it wouldn't be worth reexamining, but then I noticed that ZnUrl implemented #mailToAddress so I figured it was at least worth asking about. The reason it seems important to specify the users this way is that, although the rfc [1] allows users to be specified in the query, it also says that "[that] form is NOT RECOMMENDED because⦠some existing clients ignore "to" <hfvalue>s." 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6068 ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
I didn't even know that multiple addresses were possible. As you know, URL's can basically be anything, it does not seem possible to handle them all. ZnUrl covers the most common cases, that is already something. Indeed, as you can see from #testMailTo there is basic support for the mailto: scheme which seems to match the existing instance variables, other variants feel out of scope I guess.
On 16 Jun 2018, at 15:17, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
I have a ZnUrl subclass MailtoUrl. It was working for simple cases, but then I realized that ZnUrl assumes a single username. At first, I figured maybe mailto was such a specialized case that it wouldn't be worth reexamining, but then I noticed that ZnUrl implemented #mailToAddress so I figured it was at least worth asking about.
The reason it seems important to specify the users this way is that, although the rfc [1] allows users to be specified in the query, it also says that "[that] form is NOT RECOMMENDED because⦠some existing clients ignore "to" <hfvalue>s."
1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6068
----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
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
Sean P. DeNigris wrote
Re-reading the rfc I'm still not entirely clear
Apparently, multiple mailto addresses are inherently problematic [2], and the only real/safe/valid solution is using a web form! 2. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9278363/emailing-to-multiple-recipients-... ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
participants (2)
-
Sean P. DeNigris -
Sven Van Caekenberghe