phone types

[Mike Lieberman]

Yes, that goes most of the way there, so long as you don't parse the
extension field for numbers and other acceptable characters.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Ginny Listman, ARIN wrote:
>
> I neglected to mention, we have two fields, phone_number and
> phone_ext.
> That said, is there still a problem?
>
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Mike Lieberman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Ginny Listman, ARIN wrote:
> > >
> > > As I look at what is currently stored in the phone fields of
> > > the current
> > > database, making the above assumption/conversion seems
> reasonable.  A
> > > phone number should be a phone number, and not have other
> > > info stored with
> > > it.
> >
> > Why? If extensions are necessary to work one's way through
> a PBX or a PIN for
> > a pager, or a web address for a text paging terminal... why
> is a number
> > always a number?
> >
> > When calling during non-business hours, many "numbers"
> aren't useful with
> > extra information, such as the proper extension, or after
> hours contact
> > options.
> >
> > Frequently the "POC" is not known as the POC by the company
> PBX 'operator'
> > and is certainly not designated as such by the dialing
> options on the pbx.
> > While the 'role' remains, people change, different 'desks'
> get assigned to
> > the 'role' over the years.
> >
> > We have found the 'simple' phone number to be of marginal
> value many times.
> >
>
>