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--