phone types

[ginny listman]

The extension field will be free-form.  However, we will attempt to
provide guidelines to follow regarding what should/should not be entered.

Ginny

On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Mike Lieberman wrote:

> 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.
> > >
> >
> >
>