Hello Jonathan,
On Saturday, February 22, 2003 at 23:05:18, you wrote:
Actually you're partially correct. Yes, outlook is accepting the
breaking of the RFCs, but with a slight change to the registry entry
for mailto: handling, TB also handles it just right too.
But why should each user have to
Agreed. Also, for most of the users, that last thing you want is to
have them playing with the registry.
Sunday, February 23, 2003, 3:49:43 AM, Paddy wrote:
Hello Jonathan,
On Saturday, February 22, 2003 at 23:05:18, you wrote:
Actually you're partially correct. Yes, outlook is
Actually you're partially correct. Yes, outlook is accepting the
breaking of the RFCs, but with a slight change to the registry entry
for mailto: handling, TB also handles it just right too.
But why should each user have to tweak the registry? Correct markup
would eliminate the problem.
Hello Paddy,
Sunday, February 23, 2003, you wrote:
Hello Jonathan,
On Saturday, February 22, 2003 at 23:05:18, you wrote:
Actually you're partially correct. Yes, outlook is accepting the
breaking of the RFCs, but with a slight change to the registry entry
for mailto: handling, TB also
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Andy,
23-Feb-2003, 11:48 -0500 (16:48 UK time) Andy [A] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But why should each user have to tweak the registry? Correct
markup would eliminate the problem.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Nicer still would be if when
Hi Andy,
on Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:48:11 -0500GMT (23.02.03, 17:48 +0100GMT here),
you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :
But why should each user have to tweak the registry? Correct markup
would eliminate the problem.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A Nicer still would be if when the link is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jonathan Angliss [JA] wrote:'
JA Do you want to go tell 90% of web developers that they should write
JA the corrrect code?
Isn't it the case that in the instances where one thinks the browser
is recognising the
Hello Peter,
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:03:26 +0100 GMT (24/02/03, 00:03 +0700 GMT),
Peter Meyns wrote:
Winamp currently playing: ³¯«³¨³/·¨¤då /®e¯ª¨à/¦óÃý¸Ö - ®üÁï¤ÑªÅ
Is this Chinese?
--
Cheers,
Thomas.
Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste.
Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least
Hi,
I'm sure not a real beta bug, but I think this is a good way to mention the
bug:
I noticed that the link mailto: not completly works. Clicking on the
Feedack-link on http://www.komp.com (oh by the way great radiostation!) you
get a new mail with the subject KOMP instead of KOMP - Las Vegas
Hello Martin,
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 02:39:14 +0100 GMT (23/02/03, 08:39 +0700 GMT),
Martin Sebald wrote:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Las Vegas Website Feedback
Even if the link is not correct (maybe it is correct with around it, I
don't know), TB! should react correctly, Outlook Express does
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Las Vegas Website
Feedback Even if the link is not correct (maybe it is correct with
around it,
I don't know), TB! should react correctly, Outlook Express does it
correctly.
The bug is in the web page, the link is incorrect. Links cannot
contain blanks.
Hello Jonathan,
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 01:05:18 -0600 GMT (23/02/03, 14:05 +0700 GMT),
Jonathan Angliss wrote:
Therefore, TB does it correctly, Outlook does it incorrectly. I see
absolutely not reason to ask TB to violate RFCs only because Outlook
does it and the web-designer doesn't know how to
12 matches
Mail list logo
