Datatypes R2 Issue 68

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)

from http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3966.txt (The tel URI for Telephone Numbers)

7.2.  Why Not Distinguish between Call Types?

  Signaling protocols such as SIP allow negotiating the call type and
  parameters, making the very basic indication within the URI scheme
  moot.  Also, since the call type can change frequently, any such
  indication in a URI is likely to be out of date.  If such designation
  is desired for a device that directly places calls without a
  signaling protocol such as SIP, mechanisms such as the "type"
  attribute for the "A" element in HTML may be more appropriate.

This indicates to me that "Use" should be used. I would tend to agree with Grahame that this is a fuzzy enough area for it to be more important to agree something and move on, than to spend too long either discussing at leangth, or stalling for want of discussion time. Charliemccay 07:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Disposition

Motion: INM revisits the decision to use Use to differentiate between fax and tel (issue 38) and considers the use of x-text-fax instead. In addition we confirm the use of x-text-tel for this use case. (Lloyd/Sandy) (approved INM telecon --GrahameGrieve 13:54, 16 April 2007 (CDT))

Status

Resolved

Links

Back to Data Types R2 issues