Talk:mailto

Old edit

Better a descripton of the "mailto:" url format! see: http://www.ianr.unl.edu/internet/mailto.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.78.23.100 (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HTML encoding/escaping is missing!

In the examples the URI is not properly put into HTML. The ampersand character (&) must be encoded as & (or numerical equivalent) when used in HTML. Same goes for quotes, less-than and some others. (although they are not used in any examples as of this writing) --Xerces8 (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Mailto → mailto URI scheme – titles cannot start with lowercase, but people may accidentally type malito 209.52.88.61 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Lengthening the title won't stop anyone from typing malito. We can always put a hatnote on that article if anyone thinks it's really necessary. Station1 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blanks etc. cannot be embedded but must be percent-encoded.

Doesn't the percent-encoding allow you to do just that, to embed blanks etc. ? Would it be sufficient to write, that these characters need to be percent-encoded? My proposal is to change that phrase to:

Characters like blanks, carriage returns, linefeeds must all be percent-encoded. Erniecom (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why disable RFC auto-link?

@Scott: I saw that RFC-autolink is suppressed by "nowiki" tag in this edit. Mind elaborating? Typical case seems to be either enabling the default auto-link, or using {{IETF RFC}}. --Franklin Yu (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Franklin, the "magic linking" feature is a holdover from the very beginning of MediaWiki and predates our content guideline that external links should not normally be present in the body of articles. RFCs are citeable and should be linked from the references section. The magic linking feature is also being removed, see discussions at MediaWiki and at Phabricator.  — Scott • talk 10:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)