Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Michael MD]

ENUM lookup results for +43 780 
004711




why is "adr" in there? ... it's not a physical address so that seems strange 
to me



___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello Martin,

On 8/23/07, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]

> > > > It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social
> > > > Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name.  And
> > > > thus you would NOT put a "fn" on that.
> > >
> > > FN [1] represents the name of the object not a person so to speak
> > >
> > > so the use of fn in Andys example is fair use I would say.
> >
> > In the example we had, as I understood it, this is a telephone number
> > of a person or a company.
> >
> > So... the "object" is either a person or a company.
>
> so you dont think the telephone number is the object ?

Yes... a telephone is an object.  But in this case, it is not the
"object" that the page is "talking" about AFAICT.

It's all about context.  (And in this context, it's not the object
that matters.  The organization that the telephone belongs to is the
object that matters.)

[...]

> > And given that, I would say that it isn't "fair" to apply the "fn" to
> > the telephone number, since it is NOT the name of a person or object.
>
> I understand you Charles it doesn't seem appropriate to use fn in this
> way but the telephone number here does not represent a person does it?
> it seems to be many people or an organisation.

In that case the "fn" should be applied to the name of the
organization.  (Which isn't on the page.)



See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. 


 Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
http://vlograzor.com/
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Martin McEvoy]

Hello Charles...

On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 13:24 -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> Hello Martin,
> 
> On 8/23/07, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone
> > > number doesn't make that their "name".
> > >
> > > It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social
> > > Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name.  And
> > > thus you would NOT put a "fn" on that.
> >
> > FN [1] represents the name of the object not a person so to speak
> >
> > so the use of fn in Andys example is fair use I would say.
> 
> In the example we had, as I understood it, this is a telephone number
> of a person or a company.
> 
> So... the "object" is either a person or a company.

so you dont think the telephone number is the object ?

I see your example

http://enumquery.com/lookup?e164=%2B43+780+004711

could be marked up as 


ENUM lookup results for +43 780 
004711

email:mailtomailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

sip 
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

web:httphttp://q.nemox.net/";>
http://q.nemox.net/





> 
> And given that, I would say that it isn't "fair" to apply the "fn" to
> the telephone number, since it is NOT the name of a person or object.

I understand you Charles it doesn't seem appropriate to use fn in this
way but the telephone number here does not represent a person does it?
it seems to be many people or an organisation.
  
> 
> I do understand what you are saying... that the telephone number if
> the object (and not a person or a company)... but I don't think that
> is what the website that that came from is shooting for.  Correct me
> if I'm wrong though... but seems that the number is suppose to belong
> to some person or company.
> 
> 
> See ya
> 

Thanks
Martin

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello Martin,

On 8/23/07, Martin McEvoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]

> > Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone
> > number doesn't make that their "name".
> >
> > It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social
> > Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name.  And
> > thus you would NOT put a "fn" on that.
>
> FN [1] represents the name of the object not a person so to speak
>
> so the use of fn in Andys example is fair use I would say.

In the example we had, as I understood it, this is a telephone number
of a person or a company.

So... the "object" is either a person or a company.

And given that, I would say that it isn't "fair" to apply the "fn" to
the telephone number, since it is NOT the name of a person or object.


I do understand what you are saying... that the telephone number if
the object (and not a person or a company)... but I don't think that
is what the website that that came from is shooting for.  Correct me
if I'm wrong though... but seems that the number is suppose to belong
to some person or company.


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. 


 Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
http://vlograzor.com/
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Martin McEvoy]

On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 12:46 -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> Hello Andy,
> 
> On 8/23/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In message
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles
> > Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >
> > >On 8/23/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >[...]
> > >
> > >> +43 780 004711
> > >
> > >I don't know if "fn" and "org" really belong in there.
> >
> > Why would they not?
> >
> > The number is the telephone number of the contact or entity named,
> > identified or labelled as "+43 780 004711".
> 
> Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone
> number doesn't make that their "name".
> 
> It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social
> Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name.  And
> thus you would NOT put a "fn" on that.

FN [1] represents the name of the object not a person so to speak

so the use of fn in Andys example is fair use I would say.

Thanks
Martin

[1] 3.1.1 FN Type Definition http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt 


> 
> 
> See ya
> 

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Andy Mabbett]

In message 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles 
Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes



>> +43 780 004711
>
>I don't know if "fn" and "org" really belong in there.

Why would they not?

The number is the telephone number of the contact or entity named,
identified or labelled as "+43 780 004711".


Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone number 
doesn't make that their "name".


Indeed not; but in the example, given, the phone number is the subject 
of the page concerned; the number *is* the name-label of that subject.


Perhaps it would help to consider a row of three, adjacent and otherwise 
identical pay-phones, Their *only* distinguishing labels are their 
telephone numbers.


--
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Andy Mabbett]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tantek Çelik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

>> - only mark up the phone number itself, and violate the hCard specs?

>That wouldn't "violate the hCard spec" per se, in that you wouldn't
>have an invalid hCard, you wouldn't have an hCard at all.

If the OP was thinking of:


+43 780 004711


that would be an invalid hCard.

-- 
Andy Mabbett

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello Andy,

On 8/23/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles
> Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> >On 8/23/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> +43 780 004711
> >
> >I don't know if "fn" and "org" really belong in there.
>
> Why would they not?
>
> The number is the telephone number of the contact or entity named,
> identified or labelled as "+43 780 004711".

Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone
number doesn't make that their "name".

It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social
Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name.  And
thus you would NOT put a "fn" on that.


See ya

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. 


 Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
http://vlograzor.com/
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Andy Mabbett]

In message 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles 
Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes



On 8/23/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]


+43 780 004711


I don't know if "fn" and "org" really belong in there.


Why would they not?

The number is the telephone number of the contact or entity named, 
identified or labelled as "+43 780 004711".


--
Andy Mabbett
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello Andy,

On 8/23/07, Andy Mabbett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[...]

> +43 780 004711

I don't know if "fn" and "org" really belong in there.

-- 
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc. 


 Vlog Razor... Vlogging News
http://vlograzor.com/
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Alexander Mayrhofer]

André Luís wrote:
> I know it's not a microformat/nanoformat per se, and it's a technique
> for mobile web, maybe it's interesting for the discussion at hand:
> 
> -
> [Turn telephone numbers into links that start a phone call]
> 
> Practice: There are two ways to implement one-click phone calls:
>  +39 39393978
> or
>  +39 39393978

Hmm "tel:" is a standardized URI scheme (IETF approved, RFC 3966),
specifically for telephone numbers while the "wtai:" URI scheme is not
registered with IANA, so i suppose that is some proprietory scheme by a
VoIP software vendor. like "skype", "callto", etc.. etc..

I'd strongly suggest to use a "tel" URI scheme for phone numbers - that's
the one that is standardized, and using it will ensure a minimum level of
interopability.

(The URI scheme registry is at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html)

Alex
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Andy Mabbett]

On Thu, August 23, 2007 17:11, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:


>here's one example: http://enumquery.com/lookup?%2B43-780-004711

You can use:

+43 780 004711

-- 
Andy Mabbett
** via webmail **

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[André Luís]

I know it's not a microformat/nanoformat per se, and it's a technique
for mobile web, maybe it's interesting for the discussion at hand:

-
[Turn telephone numbers into links that start a phone call]

Practice: There are two ways to implement one-click phone calls:
 +39 39393978
or
 +39 39393978

While modern devices support both syntaxes, neither is guaranteed to
work on all phones. In addition, some older device do not support
one-click calls at all.
Authors who rely on LCD can choose one or the other. Adaptation may be
used to cover all devices and just present the telephone number to
devices that do not support one-click calls.
---
from: http://www.passani.it/gap/#STILL_A_PHONE

What are the downsides you foresee in using this approach to markup a
telephone number for (desktop) websites/apps?


Thank you,
André Luís


On 8/23/07, Tantek Çelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/23/07 7:59 AM, "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm looking into ways to mark up "standalone" phone numbers in a uF-friendly
> > way. I don't have a name for a full hCard, only the phone number (and,
> > potentially an email/web address).
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
> Could you provide a URL to an example on the Web that you are looking to
> mark up?  Often times the surrounding context will yield critical clues for
> the markup solution.
>
> > Should i:
> >
> > - use a "fake" name for a full hCard (like " addressbook entry") for
> > a very minimal hCard
>
> That seems like semantic noise, which should probably be avoided.
>
> > - only mark up the phone number itself, and violate the hCard specs?
>
> It sounds like you are proposing reusing the "tel" property outside of an
> hCard.
>
> That wouldn't "violate the hCard spec" per se, in that you wouldn't have an
> invalid hCard, you wouldn't have an hCard at all.
>
> It seems reasonable to experiment with using properties of hCard on their
> own like that to see how it works with actual examples, especially given
> that past such experiments have yielded additional microformats (geo [1],
> adr [2]).
>
> Doing so would be good use of POSH[3].
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tantek
>
> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/geo
> [2] http://microformats.org/wiki/adr
> [3] http://microformats.org/wiki/posh
>
> ___
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss@microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
>

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Alexander Mayrhofer]

Tantek Çelik wrote:
> Could you provide a URL to an example on the Web that you are looking to
> mark up?  Often times the surrounding context will yield critical clues for
> the markup solution.

Hi Tantek,

sure - here's one example:
http://enumquery.com/lookup?%2B43-780-004711

So far the only uF on that page is the "rel='home'" property of the homepage
link, and i'm looking into more options to use uF's.

>> - use a "fake" name for a full hCard (like " addressbook entry") for
>> a very minimal hCard
> 
> That seems like semantic noise, which should probably be avoided.

Yes, it does not really add to the value of the hCard - the number would
already be into the "tel" class itself. Might not be too useful when the
hCard is presented in an application, too..

>> - only mark up the phone number itself, and violate the hCard specs?
> 
> It sounds like you are proposing reusing the "tel" property outside of an
> hCard.
> 
> That wouldn't "violate the hCard spec" per se, in that you wouldn't have an
> invalid hCard, you wouldn't have an hCard at all.

Oh, yes - true. I saw that geo is being used outside hCards as well, so the
case is somehow similiar, although in my case the URLs on the page are
related to the phone number, so the hCard would serve good as a "grouping"
function for URLs and the phone number itself...

> It seems reasonable to experiment with using properties of hCard on their
> own like that to see how it works with actual examples, especially given
> that past such experiments have yielded additional microformats (geo [1],
> adr [2]).
> 
> Doing so would be good use of POSH[3].

Ok, sounds fine with me. I think I'll mark up the phone number itself right
now, and probably look into a more reasonable fn for a full hCard.

Thanks for the useful comments & pointers!

Alex
___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss

Re: [uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.

[Tantek Çelik]

On 8/23/07 7:59 AM, "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm looking into ways to mark up "standalone" phone numbers in a uF-friendly
> way. I don't have a name for a full hCard, only the phone number (and,
> potentially an email/web address).

Hi Alexander,

Could you provide a URL to an example on the Web that you are looking to
mark up?  Often times the surrounding context will yield critical clues for
the markup solution.

> Should i:
> 
> - use a "fake" name for a full hCard (like " addressbook entry") for
> a very minimal hCard

That seems like semantic noise, which should probably be avoided.

> - only mark up the phone number itself, and violate the hCard specs?

It sounds like you are proposing reusing the "tel" property outside of an
hCard.

That wouldn't "violate the hCard spec" per se, in that you wouldn't have an
invalid hCard, you wouldn't have an hCard at all.

It seems reasonable to experiment with using properties of hCard on their
own like that to see how it works with actual examples, especially given
that past such experiments have yielded additional microformats (geo [1],
adr [2]).

Doing so would be good use of POSH[3].

Thanks,

Tantek

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/geo
[2] http://microformats.org/wiki/adr
[3] http://microformats.org/wiki/posh

___
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss