Hcard - marking up sms short codes

Hello!

I'm looking into marking up contact details for tv and radio
programmes

Typically they have a telephone number, an email address,
possibly a fax
number and often a sms short code

Is there a preferred way to mark-up the sms short code?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may
contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC
unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your
system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor
act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
					
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Tue, January 8, 2008 09:29, Michael Smethurst wrote:


> I'm looking into marking up contact details for tv and
radio programmes
>
>
> Typically they have a telephone number, an email
address, possibly a fax
> number and often a sms short code
>
> Is there a preferred way to mark-up the sms short
code?

Good pint. The nearest at the meont is
"type=cell", but such numebrs
usually canot be dialled for a voice acall, soa seaprte type
woudl make
sense.

I;ve added the issue here:



_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Tue, January 8, 2008 09:29, Michael Smethurst wrote:

> I'm looking into marking up contact details for tv and
radio programmes
>
>
> Typically they have a telephone number, an email
address, possibly a fax
> number and often a sms short code
>
> Is there a preferred way to mark-up the sms short
code?

Good point. The nearest at the moment is
"type=cell", but since such
numbers usually cannot be dialled for voice calls, that's
not really
appropriate.

I've added the issue here:

  <http://microformats.org/wiki/vcard-s
uggestions#3.3.1_TEL_Type_Definition>

and will raise it with the group being formed to look at
revising vCard.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
** via webmail **

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Andy Mabbett wrote:
> I've added the issue here:
> 
>   <http://microformats.org/wiki/vcard-s
uggestions#3.3.1_TEL_Type_Definition>
> 
> and will raise it with the group being formed to look
at revising vCard.

Hi,

it might be a good idea to look at the proposed registry for
"tel:" URI 
parameters (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-04
). 
Especially the "phone-context" URI parameter 
(http://tools.ietf.
org/html/rfc3966) could prove to be useful in such 
cases, since it tries to solve a similar problem.

hope that helps,

Alex
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On Tue, January 8, 2008 11:08, Alex Mayrhofer wrote:
> Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
>> I've added the issue here:
>>
>>
>> <http://microformats.org/wiki/vcard-suggest
ions#3.3.1_TEL_Type_Definiti
>> on>

> it might be a good idea to look at the proposed
registry for "tel:" URI
> parameters (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iptel-tel-reg-04
).
> Especially the "phone-context" URI parameter
> (http://tools.ietf.
org/html/rfc3966)

Thank you. I've added that to the above page.

(Also: apologies, to everyone, for the earlier,
part-finished e-mail.)

-- 
Andy Mabbett
** via webmail **

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 08/01/2008, Andy Mabbett <andypigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
> Good point. The nearest at the moment is
"type=cell", but since such
> numbers usually cannot be dialled for voice calls,
that's not really

I don't understand this.  Why can't type=cell be dialled for
voice calls?
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 8 Jan 2008, at 19:13, Philip Tellis wrote:

> On 08/01/2008, Andy Mabbett <andypigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>> Good point. The nearest at the moment is
"type=cell", but since such
>> numbers usually cannot be dialled for voice calls,
that's not really
>
> I don't understand this.  Why can't type=cell be
dialled for voice  
> calls?
>
I think the problem is that they can, but SMS short numbers
can't.

Jim

Jim O'Donnell
jimeatyourgreens.org.uk
http://eatyourgreens.org.
uk
http://flickr.
com/photos/eatyourgreens



_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 08/01/2008, Jim O'Donnell <jimeatyourgreens.org.uk>
wrote:
>
> > I don't understand this.  Why can't type=cell be
dialled for voice
> > calls?
> >
> I think the problem is that they can, but SMS short
numbers can't.

so should there be a way to distinguish voice enabled
numbers from SMS
only numbers and data only numbers?

This would be similar to the difference between a telephone
and FAX or
modem number.  They're both telephone numbers, just that one
of them
is connected to a telephone transceiver, while the other is
connected
to a FAX machine or a PC.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 08/01/2008, Guillaume Lebleu <glbrixlogic.com> wrote:

> Adding a TEL TYPE value 'sms' seems to be a viable
possible option. It
> is just another "service" available  the
phone number, just like voice,
> fax, etc.

so what we're looking at, is really two axes... one is the
service
running at the other end of a telephone number (voice, sms,
fax,
data), and the second is the location of this service (home,
office,
mobile).
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

In message
<2e95f9b80801081631l5828c4ffp4c3d68c500eb0ff4mail.gmail.com>, Philip
Tellis <philip.tellisgmail.com> writes

>On 08/01/2008, Guillaume Lebleu <glbrixlogic.com> wrote:
>
>> Adding a TEL TYPE value 'sms' seems to be a viable
possible option. It
>> is just another "service" available  the
phone number, just like voice,
>> fax, etc.
>
>so what we're looking at, is really two axes... one is
the service
>running at the other end of a telephone number (voice,
sms, fax, data),
>and the second is the location of this service (home,
office, mobile).

Perhaps, but I'd slice it three ways and add more:

   service:

        voice, sms, fax, data, textphone, freephone

   connection:

        landline, mobile

        (though even then landline vs. mobile can be a
vague
        distinction; and is perhaps becoming increasingly
irrelevant.
        Then there's VoIP...)

   use:

        personal, work


So I can have, for instance, a:

        work-landline-fax

which is different to each of my:

        personal-mobile-[fax+voice+sms]

my:
        work-mobile-[fax+voice+sms]

my:

        work-landline-voice

and my:

        work-landline-[voice+freephone]

-- 
Andy Mabbett
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss