Sending email from a form

[Joyster]

I worked through the example at:-http://w3schools.com/html/tryit.asp?filena...yhtml_form_mailon my own webpage. After typing in the name, email, & comment, and pressing submit, the windows email wizard appears looking for my name, etc.Is there anyway of bypassing this wizard, just submitting the name, email & comment?Or does the wizard have to be set up for the submitting to work?(I tried this on my own webpage after coming across a website that had something similar. The website asked for name, email, & comment which I entered and pressed submit/send.I'm nearly 100% positive the data was sent without having to go through the wizard).Many thanksJoyster

[Ingolme]

I have my "mailto:" protocol to open Gmail to send Emails. This example uses the MAILTO: protocol, meaning it will open some Mail sending software and create a new message but not send it instantly.If you want to send emails automatically, you'll need PHP.

[Reg Edit]

I have my "mailto:" protocol to open Gmail to send Emails. This example uses the MAILTO: protocol, meaning it will open some Mail sending software and create a new message but not send it instantly.If you want to send emails automatically, you'll need PHP.

Yeah, mailto: is somewhat deprecated because it relies on whatever mail software (Outlook Express etc) is installed on the user's own computer. So PHP or another server-side approach is needed really.

[Ingolme]

It's not deprecated* at all, it just isn't really popular because it's annoying.*Deprecated: not part of a standard anymore, but browsers still use it for backwards compatibility.

[Reg Edit]

It's not deprecated* at all, it just isn't really popular because it's annoying.*Deprecated: not part of a standard anymore, but browsers still use it for backwards compatibility.

LOL well I deprecate* it, and from what I've seen I'm not alone, so I think "somewhat deprecated" is accurate! *dep·re·cate /ˈdɛprɪˌkeɪt/ Pronunciation Key –verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.1. to express earnest disapproval of.2. to urge reasons against; protest against (a scheme, purpose, etc.).3. to depreciate; belittle.4. Archaic. to pray for deliverance from.

[Ingolme]

I was just going by this definition ( http://w3schools.com/tags/deprecated.htm ):

DeprecatedA deprecated element or attribute is one that has been outdated.Deprecated elements may become obsolete in the future, but browsers should continue to support deprecated elements for backward compatibility.

[Reg Edit]

I was just going by this definition ( http://w3schools.com/tags/deprecated.htm ):

I know. But my original remark went wider than that.And now, if you'll excuse me, I must go and pray for deliverance from mailto:

[Synook]

3. to depreciate

Since when :)For PHP mail, have a look at the mail() function.

[justsomeguy]

That definition of deprecate sounds pre-computers. As in "he made a self-deprecating comment". I prefer this definition:In computer software standards and documentation, the term deprecation is used to discourage usage of a particular software feature, usually because it has been superseded by a newer/better version.Basically, something that is deprecated is outdated in favor of something else. I would say that applies to usage of the mailto scheme.

[quayquay17]

hahaha ok guys WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HELPING THIS DUDE OUT, NOT ARGUING OVER THE DEFINITION OF CEPRECATE!!!good stuffi personally have this same problem, im stuck using mailto: which is one of the most annoying tags i use

[Ingolme]

hahaha ok guys WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HELPING THIS DUDE OUT, NOT ARGUING OVER THE DEFINITION OF CEPRECATE!!!good stuffi personally have this same problem, im stuck using mailto: which is one of the most annoying tags i use

We already did tell him a solution to his problem, so after that we can discuss the meaning of "deprecated" without worries.Anyways, mailto: is a "protocol", not a "tag".

[justsomeguy]

Actually, it's a scheme. http: is a protocol, java script: and mailto: are schemes. Protocols define communication, mailto doesn't do that.Mailto should simply not be used. Ignore it, act like it doesn't exist. The way to have a web site send an email is to use a server-side processing page to connect to a mail server and send the email.

[Reg Edit]

Actually, it's a scheme. http: is a protocol, java script: and mailto: are schemes.

Actually it's both. In Internet Explorer it's a protocol, but that reference gives as its source RFC 2368 which calls it the mailto URL scheme.

[Synook]

Well, it isn't technically a protocol, as a protocol is a method by which two network devices communicate with each other. TCP/IP is an example of a protocol, and is used by the internet to control the flow of data. The HTT Protocol is used to send HyperText documents between computers in a client-server model. However, the java script: and mailto: prefixes aren't protocols, they are just "notes" to tell the browser how to handle the link which are then handled by a different protocol, in the case of email the SMT Protocol. JavaScript commands don't even need a protocol to work, as they are handled client-side with no transfer of data between machines.

[Reg Edit]

Well, it isn't technically a protocol, as a protocol is a method by which two network devices communicate with each other. ...

That’s communications protocol!Protocol, like deprecate, is a word that’s acquired specialised definitions in the technical realms: not arbitrary definitions but specialisations of original, more general definitions. In the case of deprecate this can be seen from the discussion so far. In the case of protocol, one of the original, more general definitions is- the regulations, customs, etiquette, etc to be observed by any group or on any occasionand synonyms include- procedure, formalities, convention, custom, etiquette, manners, code of behaviourCommunications protocol is concerned with the rules/regulations/procedure/formalities/convention/custom to be observed if there is to be successful communication between devices, at a technical level, over a network. In object-oriented programming, however, protocol is synonymous with interface, and refers to the rules/regulations/procedure/formalities/convention/custom to be observed if there is to be successful communication between objects (where no network may be involved). And in the case of mailto, it’s not unreasonable to use the term protocol in the sense of rules/regulations/procedure/formalities/convention/custom to be observed to bring about certain behaviour when a user clicks a link on a web page. However, mailto is clearly not a communications protocol. In URL syntax, mailto is a scheme in the sense that TCP/IP protocols such as http and ftp are schemes; but mailto is not a TCP/IP protocol any more than javascript is a TCP/IP protocol (and this apparent conflict has led to the term pseudo-protocol being used for mailto, javascript and other schemes which are not TCP/IP protocols).In the case of Internet Explorer’s Predefined Protocols file, ftp, gopher, http, https, javascript, mailto, res, telnet and, now-obsolete, view-source, again it’s not unreasonable to use the term protocol in the sense of rules/regulations/procedure/formalities/convention/custom to be observed to bring about certain behaviour. Interestingly, even in that reference there is a certain amount of confusion over definitions of protocol: the article begins by stating that protocol is

a set of rules and standards that enables two or more computers to communicate

going on to stress that

'about:' is not a protocol as it does not enable two or more computers to communicate

but then goes on to present a list of Predefined Protocols that does include mailto and javascript.Whatever. Anyway, in summary, my point is: protocol can be used to mean communications protocol, but even within the technical realms it has other specialised meanings too (being synonymous with interface in OOP) and can be used in the more general sense of rules/regulations/procedure/formalities/convention/custom to be observed to bring about certain behaviour. Lastly, as a separate point: most words have more than one meaning, and some meanings can be specialisations of others, but the existence of a specialised meaning does not invalidate the use of the word in one of its more general senses, as long as there’s sufficient context to make clear which sense is intended--as I think was the case when people first used the words deprecate and protocol in this thread!