This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Datatypes R2 Issue 37"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Smrobertson (talk | contribs) |
Smrobertson (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
== Resolution == | == Resolution == | ||
| − | Motion: INM revisits the decision to use Use to differentiate between fax and tel (issue 37) and considers the use of x-text-fax instead. In addition we confirm the use of x-text-tel for | + | Motion: INM revisits the decision to use Use to differentiate between fax and tel (issue 37) and considers the use of x-text-fax instead. In addition we confirm the use of x-text-tel for Text Telephone use case (issue 68). (Lloyd/Sandy) (approved INM telecon -- [[User:Smrobertson|Smrobertson]] 19:28, 16 April 2007 (CDT)) |
== Status == | == Status == | ||
Revision as of 00:28, 17 April 2007
Contents
Data Types Issue 37: fax: issue
Introduction
The replacement for rfc 2396 removes the fax protocol from the URL scheme on the basis that it is an equipment type not a communication type. So we need to remove support for the fax scheme and introduce a new vocab item for fax
This would not be backward compatible.
Discussion
Thurs Q3 May 2006: Agree to create a new equipment type for FAX, and also VOICE (default) and TTD)
Resolution
Motion: INM revisits the decision to use Use to differentiate between fax and tel (issue 37) and considers the use of x-text-fax instead. In addition we confirm the use of x-text-tel for Text Telephone use case (issue 68). (Lloyd/Sandy) (approved INM telecon -- Smrobertson 19:28, 16 April 2007 (CDT))
Status
Resolved
Links
Back to Data Types R2 issues
