Difference between revisions of "Datatypes R2 Issue 68"
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
: IP is not considered an exchange protocol, though perhaps there is a matter of style here. --[[User:GrahameGrieve|GrahameGrieve]] 21:34, 11 January 2007 (CST) | : IP is not considered an exchange protocol, though perhaps there is a matter of style here. --[[User:GrahameGrieve|GrahameGrieve]] 21:34, 11 January 2007 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::IP is not, but tcp is. I agree with Rene. If W3C made this decision, they made a mistake. http: and https: are the best examples to show that you can have the same addresses, same channels, same TCP protocol, same HTTP protocol, only an intermittent layer exchanged. Just like in fax vs. tty. [[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 21:46, 11 January 2007 (CST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Back to original proposal: I think it should not be use code. The URL scheme should be for protocol. The use code should be for "why am I choosing this rather than the other contact (of the same protocol)?". Has anyone looked whether there is a W3C/IETF proposal for hearing impaired? Isn't that called tty? [[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 21:46, 11 January 2007 (CST) | ||
== Disposition == | == Disposition == | ||
Revision as of 03:46, 12 January 2007
Contents
Data Types Issue 68: Text Telephone Number
Introduction
There is a business need within two NHS CFH domains to represent a number for a 'text telephone' (a telephone which is designed for use by the hearing-impaired).
Having posted a request for suggestions to the MnM list, it was suggested that the following format be used:
<telecom use="PUB" value="x-text-tel:01392251289"/>
I intend to follow this format and use the 'x-text-tel:' prefix, and I am proposing that this format be added to the TEL datatype in the next release of the specification.
As Lloyd McKenzie suggested in a reply to my question, this will prevent variations from being invented to represent the same thing.
Comment
there is a problem here. For datatypes R2, since W3C have deprecated the fax uri type - it's all the same protocol for making the connection - then we have added FAX as a use type (HL7 WGM May 2006). Adding x-text-tel is the wrong solution here for the same reason - it should be added to the use codes. (Grahame Grieve)
- However, using the same argument ftp:, http: and https: should also be deprecated since they may all have the value www.abc.com. The prefix is not just about the addressing scheme, but also incorporates part of the exchange protocol. Are tel: and x-text-tel: the same just because they share the same telephone number access protocol? Are all IP based protocols the same just because packets use the same form of addressing? Obviously not. Rene spronk 09:50, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
- IP is not considered an exchange protocol, though perhaps there is a matter of style here. --GrahameGrieve 21:34, 11 January 2007 (CST)
- IP is not, but tcp is. I agree with Rene. If W3C made this decision, they made a mistake. http: and https: are the best examples to show that you can have the same addresses, same channels, same TCP protocol, same HTTP protocol, only an intermittent layer exchanged. Just like in fax vs. tty. Gschadow 21:46, 11 January 2007 (CST)
- Back to original proposal: I think it should not be use code. The URL scheme should be for protocol. The use code should be for "why am I choosing this rather than the other contact (of the same protocol)?". Has anyone looked whether there is a W3C/IETF proposal for hearing impaired? Isn't that called tty? Gschadow 21:46, 11 January 2007 (CST)
Disposition
Status
Proposed
Links
Back to Data Types R2 issues
