mailto in html

Discussion in 'HTML' started by hehehe, Mar 27, 2009.

  1. hehehe

    hehehe Guest

    Hello!

    Im trying to create mailto link form html page like this:
    <A HREF="mailto:?Subject=subject&Body=<b>bold text</b>">click
    here</A>

    but when i klik on page in computer where outlook2000 is installed new mail
    widow appers but in RTF format. What i need to add to automaticly mail will
    be create in html format?

    Regards
     
    hehehe, Mar 27, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. hehehe

    John Hosking Guest

    hehehe wrote:
    >
    > Im trying to create mailto link form html page like this:
    > <A HREF="mailto:?Subject=subject&Body=<b>bold text</b>">click
    > here</A>


    I would not expect the bold tags to be useful. They might even cause
    some breakage in certain mail clients. I believe these tags are invalid
    within the <a> element. (But maybe escapes would help.)
    <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.2>

    I know this is only an example, but "click here" is about the least
    useful text ever.

    Maybe you could try something more like:
    <a
    href="mailto:?subject=relevant%20subject&body=bold%20text">send
    me a mail</a>

    And of course, mailto: links are susceptible to spambots roaming the
    Web. Perhaps a contact form would be better for your needs (or, you
    know, maybe not).
    <http://www.webdevelopersnotes.com/tips/html/html_mailto_attribute_html_tips.php3>
    <http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/mailto.html>

    >
    > but when i klik on page in computer where outlook2000 is installed new mail
    > widow appers but in RTF format. What i need to add to automaticly mail will
    > be create in html format?


    Surely this depends on the configuration of that instance of Outlook
    2000 on that one PC (yours). Go to the Mail Format tab of the Options
    menu item, and change the format from Rich Text to HTML.

    Other visitors will have their own settings.

    Other (non-Microsoft) clients won't even have Rich Text as an option, so
    that's good for you. However many might not have HTML capability, or
    have chosen Plain Text, so that's "bad". I suggest you not worry about
    it. Or do you have some requirement that they send you e-mail in HTML?
    Do you think the "bold text" will really appear in bold then?

    HTH

    --
    John
    Possessive "its" has no apostrophe. Even on the Internet.
     
    John Hosking, Mar 27, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. hehehe

    SAZ Guest

    In article <gqirud$nko$>, says...
    > Hello!
    >
    > Im trying to create mailto link form html page like this:
    > <A HREF="mailto:?Subject=subject&Body=<b>bold text</b>">click
    > here</A>
    >
    > but when i klik on page in computer where outlook2000 is installed new mail
    > widow appers but in RTF format. What i need to add to automaticly mail will
    > be create in html format?
    >
    > Regards
    >
    >
    >

    The html, rtf or plain text format is dependent upon the user's Outlook
    (or any email client) personal settings - you can't control it.
     
    SAZ, Mar 27, 2009
    #3
  4. hehehe

    hehehe Guest

    I have sen mail format : html and everythiks ok when i create mailto witouth
    body but when i add body new mail sudenly change to rtf ??? why??
     
    hehehe, Mar 27, 2009
    #4
  5. hehehe

    dorayme Guest

    In article <49cd0004$>,
    John Hosking <> wrote:

    > I know this is only an example, but "click here" is about the least
    > useful text ever.


    Mind you, it is nowhere near the back of the queue. In front of it is,
    in no particular order:

    Don't click here
    Click over there
    WTF are you staring at?

    and so on...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 27, 2009
    #5
  6. hehehe

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>, Ed Mullen <>
    wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <49cd0004$>,
    > > John Hosking <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I know this is only an example, but "click here" is about the least
    > >> useful text ever.

    > >
    > > Mind you, it is nowhere near the back of the queue. ...

    ....
    >
    > Honestly. What is not clear about "click here?" It may not be elegant,
    > nor even grammatical in some contexts, but, still? "... Sheesh.


    One main argument against 'click here' is that no information is given
    about where the user is going in the element text. Now, if you make it
    perfectly clear otherwise where the user is going, the charge is often
    one of inelegance. It is usually more economical to simply make the link
    speak for itself.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2009
    #6
  7. hehehe

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>, Ed Mullen <>
    wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:

    ....
    > > One main argument against 'click here' is that no information is given
    > > about where the user is going in the element text. Now, if you make it
    > > perfectly clear otherwise where the user is going, the charge is often
    > > one of inelegance. It is usually more economical to simply make the link
    > > speak for itself.
    > >

    >
    > Well, sorta, ok.
    >
    > But, please, cite an existence of some real-world example where a "Click
    > Here" link didn't provide enough context so the reader could discern
    > that "clicking here" would move them to "that place."


    Give me a short while to check all of the cases out:

    Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,860,000,000 for "click here". (0.21
    seconds)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2009
    #7
  8. dorayme wrote:

    > Ed Mullen <> wrote:
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> John Hosking <> wrote:
    >>>> I know this is only an example, but "click here" is about the least
    >>>> useful text ever.
    >>>
    >>> Mind you, it is nowhere near the back of the queue. ...

    > ...
    >>
    >> Honestly. What is not clear about "click here?" It may not be
    >> elegant, nor even grammatical in some contexts, but, still? "...
    >> Sheesh.

    >
    > One main argument against 'click here' is that no information is
    > given about where the user is going in the element text. Now, if you
    > make it perfectly clear otherwise where the user is going, the charge
    > is often one of inelegance. It is usually more economical to simply
    > make the link speak for itself.


    Isn't the argument that search engines pay a bit more attention to <a
    link text than regular content, and googling for "Click Here" is
    unproductive?

    http://www.google.com/search?q="click here"
    Results 1 - 10 of about 1,820,000,000 for "click here". (0.15 seconds)

    (Well, it's obvious Adobe give the Mighty Goog a lot of loot. First;
    http://get.adobe.com/reader/
    a page that does not even contain the text "Click Here"...)

    --
    -bts
    -Friends don't let friends drive Windows
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 28, 2009
    #8
  9. hehehe

    freemont Guest

    On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:

    > Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the sake of
    > arguing. Silly.


    I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w over
    the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and pissing
    contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about right? ;-)

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
     
    freemont, Mar 28, 2009
    #9
  10. hehehe

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>, Ed Mullen <>
    wrote:

    > > Give me a short while to check all of the cases out:
    > >
    > > Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,860,000,000 for "click here". (0.21
    > > seconds)
    > >

    >
    > Honest, I only meant to ask for ONE!


    No, I absolutely insist Ed! I have done you wrong in the paragraph
    thread and I mean to make it up to you. I am up to 18,600 and they have
    all been perfectly understandable from the context... Looks like you
    might have had a point.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2009
    #10
  11. hehehe

    dorayme Guest

    In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
    freemont <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
    >
    > > Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the sake of
    > > arguing. Silly.

    >
    > I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w over
    > the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and pissing
    > contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about right? ;-)


    You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
    paroxysmic stuff. 0%?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2009
    #11
  12. hehehe

    dorayme Guest

    In article <gqk31e$c1r$>,
    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

    > Isn't the argument that search engines pay a bit more attention to <a
    > link text than regular content, and googling for "Click Here" is
    > unproductive?


    The first bit is a good point.

    Only an idiot would google for "Click here". Oops... hang on... that's
    me!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2009
    #12
  13. hehehe

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ben C <> wrote:

    > On 2009-03-28, dorayme <> wrote:

    ....
    > > One main argument against 'click here' is that no information is given
    > > about where the user is going in the element text. Now, if you make it
    > > perfectly clear otherwise where the user is going, the charge is often
    > > one of inelegance. It is usually more economical to simply make the link
    > > speak for itself.

    >
    > These are good arguments, but I read somewhere [citation needed] that
    > people respond well to direct commands.
    >
    > Tell them jump and they ask how high. Tell them to click here and that's
    > what they do.
    >
    > Links with boring words like, "read more information" got the fewest
    > clicks in the study.


    Perhaps people just like going on surprise destinations, the child in us
    all, the mystery journey. Maybe there are studies of associated eyeball
    reactions somewhere. Maybe the eyes of those who use Click me's a lot
    will be found to grow their eyes in wonder and anticipation like kids
    do... <g>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2009
    #13
  14. hehehe

    freemont Guest

    On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:19:10 +1100, dorayme writ:

    > In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
    > freemont <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
    >>
    >> > Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the sake
    >> > of arguing. Silly.

    >>
    >> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w
    >> over the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and
    >> pissing contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about
    >> right? ;-)

    >
    > You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
    > paroxysmic stuff. 0%?


    Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
    Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
    outta yer fly?"
    Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
     
    freemont, Mar 28, 2009
    #14
  15. hehehe

    dorayme Guest

    In article <de775$49ce0f92$ae831467$>,
    freemont <> wrote:

    > Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
    > Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
    > outta yer fly?"
    > Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"


    <g>

    I like bar jokes.

    This shadow walks into a bar.

    "I'll have a Claytons." it says

    "Figures!" says the barman.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Mar 28, 2009
    #15
  16. hehehe

    rf Guest

    freemont wrote:
    > On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:19:10 +1100, dorayme writ:
    >
    >> In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
    >> freemont <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
    >>>
    >>>> Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the
    >>>> sake of arguing. Silly.
    >>>
    >>> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w
    >>> over the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and
    >>> pissing contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about
    >>> right? ;-)

    >>
    >> You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
    >> paroxysmic stuff. 0%?

    >
    > Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
    > Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
    > outta yer fly?"
    > Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"


    Bloke says to the bartender: Just between you and me we have five, and I'd
    like a free beer just to prove it to the milling croud. Bartender says: Wow.
    I've never met a bloke with four of them before.
     
    rf, Mar 28, 2009
    #16
  17. rf wrote:
    > freemont wrote:
    >> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:19:10 +1100, dorayme writ:
    >>
    >>> In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
    >>> freemont <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the
    >>>>> sake of arguing. Silly.
    >>>> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w
    >>>> over the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and
    >>>> pissing contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about
    >>>> right? ;-)
    >>> You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
    >>> paroxysmic stuff. 0%?

    >> Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
    >> Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
    >> outta yer fly?"
    >> Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"

    >
    > Bloke says to the bartender: Just between you and me we have five, and I'd
    > like a free beer just to prove it to the milling croud. Bartender says: Wow.
    > I've never met a bloke with four of them before.


    Termite goes into a bar and asks "Where's the bar tender?"
     
    Phil Kempster, Mar 28, 2009
    #17
  18. hehehe

    freemont Guest

    On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:57:51 +1030, Phil Kempster writ:

    > rf wrote:
    >> freemont wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:19:10 +1100, dorayme writ:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <7912$49cd9438$ae831467$>,
    >>>> freemont <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:07:15 -0400, Ed Mullen writ:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Nonsensical arguments about nothing. Pedantic. Arguing for the
    >>>>>> sake of arguing. Silly.
    >>>>> I think you've summed up about 60% of the content here and in a.w.w
    >>>>> over the last year or two. Another 35% is personal flamewars and
    >>>>> pissing contests. Then there's 5% useful information. Sound about
    >>>>> right? ;-)
    >>>> You left out the jokes, the screamingly funny, rolling on the floor
    >>>> paroxysmic stuff. 0%?
    >>> Pirate goes in a bar with a steering wheel hanging outta his fly.
    >>> Bartender says, "Hey, buddy, you know there's a steering wheel hanging
    >>> outta yer fly?"
    >>> Pirate says, "ARRRR, it's driving me nuts!"

    >>
    >> Bloke says to the bartender: Just between you and me we have five, and
    >> I'd like a free beer just to prove it to the milling croud. Bartender
    >> says: Wow. I've never met a bloke with four of them before.

    >
    > Termite goes into a bar and asks "Where's the bar tender?"


    lol :-D

    Horse goes into a bar and the bartender says, "Why the long face?"

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
     
    freemont, Mar 28, 2009
    #18
  19. hehehe

    John Hosking Guest

    Ben C wrote:
    > On 2009-03-28, dorayme wrote:
    >> In article <>, Ed Mullen <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> dorayme wrote:
    >>>> In article <49cd0004$>,
    >>>> John Hosking wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I know this is only an example, but "click here" is about the least
    >>>>> useful text ever.
    >>>> Mind you, it is nowhere near the back of the queue. ...

    >> ...
    >>> Honestly. What is not clear about "click here?" It may not be elegant,
    >>> nor even grammatical in some contexts, but, still? "... Sheesh.


    Oh, it's clear. We are supposed to click here (on the (probably) blue
    underlined link). But what'll happen? Where will we land? What *is* the
    link? Which last question takes us back to the Semantic Web discussions.

    >> One main argument against 'click here' is that no information is given
    >> about where the user is going in the element text. Now, if you make it
    >> perfectly clear otherwise where the user is going, the charge is often
    >> one of inelegance. It is usually more economical to simply make the link
    >> speak for itself.

    >
    > These are good arguments, but I read somewhere [citation needed] that
    > people respond well to direct commands.
    >
    > Tell them jump and they ask how high. Tell them to click here and that's
    > what they do.
    >
    > Links with boring words like, "read more information" got the fewest
    > clicks in the study.


    Well, now I'm confused (as if wasn't ever before). Isn't "read more
    information" a direct command?
    ;-)


    --
    John
    Trivia question: Who was the 43rd president of the United States?
     
    John Hosking, Mar 28, 2009
    #19
  20. On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:40:08 +0100, "hehehe" <> wrote:

    >I have sen mail format : html and everythiks ok when i create mailto witouth
    >body but when i add body new mail sudenly change to rtf ??? why??
    >

    Ask Outllook ......

    Not everybody use outlook as mail client .......

    A friend usues your method to create a mail with a subject, and a body
    containing all input zones from the form.

    I have SeaMonkey as my browserr and default mail client.
    The only mail i get is an empty one ....

    When i told this to my friend, he just say: ho ! it works for
    everybody ...WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

    If you really want to create a sophisticated mail from a from - please
    use the mail() command inside a php page.
     
    Raymond Schmit, Mar 28, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dan Morrissey

    Creating HTML Email Body using MailTo tag

    Dan Morrissey, Jul 9, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    835
    Dan Morrissey
    Jul 9, 2003
  2. brucie

    Re: html mailto

    brucie, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    499
    brucie
    Jul 25, 2003
  3. Ncred

    html mailto display problem

    Ncred, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    753
    Jerry Muelver
    Jul 25, 2003
  4. EightNineThree

    Re: html mailto

    EightNineThree, Jul 25, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    632
    William Tasso
    Jul 25, 2003
  5. Thomas Gagne
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    358
    Robert Klemme
    Mar 15, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page