[LINK] E-mail question

[Adam Todd]

First one is broken, second one works, third one is broken.

I actually didn't know about this.    But then I've NEVER had anyone 
complain that a long URL was broken when I've sent them.  Maybe 
Eudora does this automatically?


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

I took the space out, because it's unlikely the URL had a space in 
it, but did the above wrap or break?




At 10:21 AM 9/06/2007, Ivan Trundle wrote:
>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>
>_______________________________________________
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link