IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme

IPP Mail Archive: Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme

Re: IPP> Re: New IPP Scheme

Robert Herriot (robert.herriot@Eng.Sun.COM)
Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:46:29 -0700

--=====================_666159366==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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
>

--=====================_666159366==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

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
>

--=====================_666159366==_.ALT--