W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: tel: or wtai: as URL scheme?

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:48:11 +0200
To: Herwig Feichtinger <hf@isdn-capi.de>
Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1181551691.20512.22.camel@altostratustier>

Hi Herwig,

Le lundi 11 juin 2007 à 10:16 +0200, Herwig Feichtinger a écrit :
> the validator seems not to like "tel:0123456" URI schemes
> as used on my XHTML MP pages.

It actually only raises a warning, advising to make sure the text of
such links makes clear what the target of the link is. Note that
mobileOK Basic only recognize http and https URIs, all the other schemes
are warned about, to help identify possible issues.

In this case, I think it's pretty clear this is a phone number.

> Other sites use something like wtai://wp/mc;0123456 (e.g.
> Google Local). Looking at WICD Core 1.0 at
> http://www.w3.org/2004/CDF/specs/CDR/wp-1/wicd.html ,
> both tel: and wtai: are allowed.
> 
> Any recommendations from the group regarding URI schemes
> for using telephone numbers in mobile XHTML MP pages?
> What should be preferred?

tel: is the officially registered scheme:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3966.txt
http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html

I think wtai: used to be more widely supported (since it is the one that
was recommended by the WAP forum), but I don't know if this is still
true or not.
http://esw.w3.org/topic/UriSchemes/wtai

Dom
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 08:49:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:56 UTC