phone types]

[Shane Kerr]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 09:27:40AM -0500, J. Scott Marcus wrote:
> At 11:25 01/04/2001 +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> 
> >  ...
> >  That is the reason why we try to motivate people to use the canonical
> >  form of
> >
> >  +country<space>regional-code<space>subscriber-number<space>extension
> >  +99 1234 11223344 9999
> >
> >  An example for AT: +43 1 4277 14033 (POTS, Vienna) or
> >                     +43 664 1234567 (mobile)
> >  An example for ES: +34 93 1234567 (POTS, Barcelona)
> 
> 
> Looks good.  And under this system, am I correct in thinking that my U.S.
> number would be encoded as:
> 
>                       +1 781 2623075   ?

(I missed the beginning of this thread, so apologies if this was
mentioned...)

One possible problem is there's no way for me to know if the person
entering the phone number is using this form or not.  In such a case, I
don't know whether the number after the last space is part of the number
of the extension.

    +31 20 535 4444

Does this person sit at extension 4444, or are they merely using one of
the the local Dutch method?  Unless you can *enforce* the canonical
form, then perhaps it's not so bad to diferentiate the extension
somehow?

   +31 20 535 4444
   +31 20 535 4444 x427

In case you were wondering.  :)

Shane