- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:51:21 -0700
- To: "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
- CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
hello. thanks for the emails regarding my question about reusing parts of the tel syntax. i am not quite sure what all of that means, since it seems that there are issues with the current syntax. 3966 needs to be fixed and there is nothing i could/should reference right now? the basic idea was that quite a bit of effort went into the tel URI scheme, and that the sms URI scheme should reuse the tel scheme's model and syntax of what a telephone number is. this way, implementations for parsing telephone numbers could be reused. but: now that you have pointed out the errata, i have looked at these and they turn out to be very relevant for me, because erratum 203 says that isdn-subaddress = ";isub=" 1*uric should be replaced with isdn-subaddress = ";isub=" 1*paramchar looking at the corrected syntax, it seems to me that a literal "," is not allowed to be part of an isdn-subaddress anymore, which would solve my basic problem of whether the sms URI scheme can use a literal "," for separating telephone numbers. so here is my rephrased question: since "," is not allowed as a part of a telephone number in the telephone-subscriber part of a tel URI, can i use the telephone-subscriber syntax to replace the sms-number production in the proposed sms URI scheme? i just want to make sure that the syntax will be correct. tel: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3966 sms: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-sms-uri-15 thanks a lot and kind regards, erik wilde tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814 dret@berkeley.edu - http://dret.net/netdret UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)
Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 16:52:23 UTC