attachment

<html> If there is going to be a separate "E.164" URL type for voice and fax, how does mechanism work for phone numbers that are both voice and fax -- many homes have a system that takes voice messages and faxes.  Bob Herriot At 06:14 AM 7/13/98 , Keith Moore wrote: >> 2.  In cases where people handle URL's, I think the "http:" URL is better >> from a number of perspectives which I have already described.  Some how >> people seem to figure out business cards that say: >> >> Phone: 606-232-4808 >> Fax: 606-232-6740 >> > >It's interesting that you should cite that case.  The discussion recently >came up on the URI list as to whether there should be a single "E.164" >URL type for all phone numbers, or whether there should be separate URL >types for voice, fax, etc. > >The conclusion was that they had to be separate, because the user >interfaces for the handling of fax and phone needed to be different, >and also because in some cases (e.g. ISDN) the call setup actually >needed to know which was being used before the call was placed. > >The http/ipp argument seems very similar to me, with a similar conclusion. > >Keith > </html>