[LINK] E-mail question

[Ivan Trundle]

Linkers

Here's a real example to illustrate my question better:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/2152AFA3-DE5C-4A92- 
BE17-672C7858E854.html

or

<http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/2152AFA3-DE5C-4A92- 
BE17-672C7858E854.html>

Which one works?

-----
And if either were wrapped:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/2152AFA3-DE5C-4A92- 
BE17-672C7858
E854.html

or

<http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/2152AFA3-DE5C-4A92- 
BE17-672C785
8E854.html>

(Incidentally, this is an article from Roughly Drafted entitled,  
'Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire')

iT

-----

On 09/06/2007, at 9:59 AM, Ivan Trundle wrote:

> Linkers
>
> Some time ago, there was discussion about the use of "<" and ">" to  
> wrap weblink references in e-mail messages.
>
> Can anyone enlighten me as to the usefulness/appropriateness/ 
> standards applicability of wrapping web references this way, and if  
> it is still considered to be a Good Thing?
>
> I've not found any RFC relating to the use of less-than/greater- 
> than symbols which purportedly permit long URLs to remain  
> 'clickable' even after being wrapped at the 80-character-plus mark.
>
<snip>