On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:26 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Scott Lawrence >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 17:27 -0400, M. Ranganathan wrote: >> >> Hello,
> A nice UI that let the user treat components separately might be nice, > but it might leave open the potential that the what the caller-id > configuration UI thinks the phone will send does not match what the > phone really does send - especially for unmanaged phones. That's a > pretty good argument for the configuration just being the full field > value. That can be used to acheive what you need (again, with the > anonymous issue possibly being slightly different). > Perhaps we need a happy medium. I did try to suggest some separation before. Perhaps too much. Can we at least separate the display name from the rest of it? Any comments from the sipxconfig group? Thanks Ranga > > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
