Re: ISO8601 [was] Re: Pointless, Badly-Written Module.

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 12:26:46PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> Chris Benson wrote:
> > The people in uk.telecom were suggesting a one-off-this-will-hurt-but-
> > it'll-only-happen-once change where the entire country moved to 
> >     (XXXX) YYYY-ZZZZ 
> > format
> 
> Wouldn't that be rather wasteful? After all, population is distributed
> unevenly. You have some cities with lots of inhabitants, and then you have
> rural areas with a much smaller population density. Does that mean that in
> rural areas, you (a) have an area code covering a *huge* area, or (b) waste
> lots of phone numbers? As I see, it's one or the other.

What's wrong with (a)?  It already happens in (eg) the Highlands, and IIRC
Northern Ireland has just one area code now for the entire province.*

And if you have a big enough address space - and twelve digits is very big
indeed - what's wrong with (b)?

* - BTW, does that mean that all calls within NI are now charged at local
rate?  Can belfast.pm enlighten me on this?

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

    This is a signature.  There are many like it but this one is mine.

** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important **

PGP signature