mailto: form using GET. Cannot get spaces in text.

-Lost

I was writing the 7th installment to introducing my children to HTML and came upon
something that I am not familiar with, evidently.

http://foomanchu.com/standardize7.htm

I have two mailto: forms near the bottom of that page. The first, entitled "classic
mailto form" just uses POST. All spaces get conveyed just fine.

The second, entitled "better classic mailto form" has +s instead of spaces. The only
fundamental difference I can see is it uses GET. Now, I have tried &nsbp; and %20 with
little luck. It merely posts the %20, and the   get converted to +s.

Any idea, or is that the default behavior?

Thanks!

-Lost

Mar 29 '07 #1

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit -Lost:

I have two mailto: forms near the bottom of that page.

Worse than useless. Are you really teaching others to use forms without even
knowing this? Consider reading a decent tutorial on HTML.

The second, entitled "better classic mailto form" has +s instead of
spaces. The only fundamental difference I can see is it uses GET.

That's of course even more absurd.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Mar 29 '07 #2

-Lost

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:_F*******************@reader1.news.saunalahti .fi...

Scripsit -Lost:

>I have two mailto: forms near the bottom of that page.

Worse than useless. Are you really teaching others to use forms without even knowing
this? Consider reading a decent tutorial on HTML.

I am well-aware of the uselessness of the mailto: Protocol. The usefullness however is
not the intent nor the request.

Notice I call those examples "classic?" I defined these examples to my girls the same way
I would explain "legacy" code in a compiled language. I told them this was not to be used
anymore as it could not be validated as to what it does on each machine.

Anyway...

>The second, entitled "better classic mailto form" has +s instead of
spaces. The only fundamental difference I can see is it uses GET.

That's of course even more absurd.

Thanks, Jukka, but it is for example.

Now, I do not suppose you know why it inserts +s do you?

-Lost

Mar 29 '07 #3

-Lost

"-Lost" <mi*********@comcast.netwrote in message
news:eK******************************@comcast.com. ..

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:_F*******************@reader1.news.saunalahti .fi...

>Scripsit -Lost:

>>I have two mailto: forms near the bottom of that page.

Worse than useless. Are you really teaching others to use forms without even knowing
this? Consider reading a decent tutorial on HTML.

I am well-aware of the uselessness of the mailto: Protocol. The usefullness however is
not the intent nor the request.

I believe honestly my error was in assuming Internet Explorer (and Outlook Express) for
all scenarios.

That is why I ask the question so generally. Erroneous assumption.

-Lost

Mar 29 '07 #4

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit -Lost:

I am well-aware of the uselessness of the mailto: Protocol.

I wrote "worse than useless" and about action="mailto:..." (the use of <a
href="mailto:...">...</ais a different issue, and it is incorrect to call
the _protocol_ useless). It causes lost data and aggravation.

The usefullness however is not the intent nor the request.

It's the thing that matters when you present examples.

Notice I call those examples "classic?"

action="mailto:..." was never good practice, still less classic.

Now, I do not suppose you know why it inserts +s do you?

Of course I do, but I also know the question is irrelevant. If you want to
study GET vs. POST, start from the specifications, and then create examples
that use action attributes with a defined meaning.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Mar 29 '07 #5

-Lost

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:Gb*****************@reader1.news.saunalahti.f i...

Scripsit -Lost:

>I am well-aware of the uselessness of the mailto: Protocol.

I wrote "worse than useless" and about action="mailto:..." (the use of <a
href="mailto:...">...</ais a different issue, and it is incorrect to call the
_protocol_ useless). It causes lost data and aggravation.

>The usefullness however is not the intent nor the request.

It's the thing that matters when you present examples.

Duly noted.

>Notice I call those examples "classic?"

action="mailto:..." was never good practice, still less classic.

>Now, I do not suppose you know why it inserts +s do you?

Of course I do, but I also know the question is irrelevant. If you want to study GET vs.
POST, start from the specifications, and then create examples that use action attributes
with a defined meaning.

Actually, that answered my question. The flaw is in the implementation.

Thanks, Jukka.

-Lost

Mar 30 '07 #6