From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Strey Subject: Re: phone links... Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:14:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20130417081441.GB659@strey.biz> References: <5156228C.4010400@sift.info> <20130410141754.GQ659@strey.biz> <20130411102734.GU659@strey.biz> <87eheasy9k.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <37821B02-F171-41B9-82E7-D26219D22817@sift.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:43975) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1USNVt-0007Iv-Ag for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:14:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1USNVs-0001vR-9K for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:14:45 -0400 Received: from mx2.supremebox.com ([198.23.53.42]:38922) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1USNVs-0001vM-4z for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:14:44 -0400 Received: from [77.5.246.243] (helo=localhost) by mx2.supremebox.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1USNVq-0002ta-UG for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:14:43 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <37821B02-F171-41B9-82E7-D26219D22817@sift.info> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 07:25:38AM -0500, Robert P. Goldman wrote: [...] > The reason I am reluctant to adopt tel: is that that would suggest we > should adopt the phone number syntax of RFC 3966. I confess that I > haven't slogged my way through it, nor am I likely to have time to in > the near future.... [...] > What do you all think? Am I being too fussy? Yes ;-) Honestly, using the `tel:' syntax doesn't require to adopt the complete RFC 3966. Your syntax rules can be more strict than those of RFC 3966 and nontheless phone numbers in the resulting org files will be interpretable by all other systems that are able to do sensible things of the RFC 3966 syntax (in particular MobileOrg). Moreover my filtering function addresses at least some aspects of RFC 3966 allowing phone numbers like [[tel:(0351) 412 95-35]] [[tel:+49 351/412-95-35]] [[tel:+493514129535]] [[tel:+49-351-41295-35]] Best regards -- Michael Strey www.strey.biz