Hi, Sander Steffann wrote:
existing 'role' object. Use of a different word to describe this hint in the URI field would perhaps make things clearer, thus:
URI: <purpose (or whatever)> <URI> [optional] [multiple] hmm, why not go with a generic "attribute:" field then and stick all semantics in a free form optional label?
Well, I think the semantics are clear for this: Make one field type to put contact information in, without having to make a different field type for every type of communication.
You still have the 'how to contact someone' semantics, without fixing it to one type of communication. The alternative (if we want different types of contact information) is to add a "sip:" field, an "icq:" field, a "jabber:" field, a "skype:" field, etc.
I personally would prefer a single field with a flexible uri than all these different types. As long as the semantics of the field remain 'how to contact someone' ofcourse.
like i mentioned before, i probably would support a more "standard" thing like SIP, and a generic "uri:" option woulnd't be too bad. I can't say anything against it, no problems. Why not. The idea is somewhat appealing to me, although i still think, phone+email is enough for everyone :-) But i'm totally against anything like "im:" or even "icq: .. skype:.." This still sounds stupid. If at all, we should go with the generic version to make everyone happy. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================