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
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/ipp/attachments/19980714/489732af/attachment.html