From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Robert P. Goldman" <rpgoldman@sift.info>
Subject: Re: phone links...
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:38 -0500
Message-ID: <37821B02-F171-41B9-82E7-D26219D22817@sift.info>
References: <5156228C.4010400@sift.info> <20130410141754.GQ659@strey.biz>
	<20130411102734.GU659@strey.biz> <87eheasy9k.fsf@ucl.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35057)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rpgoldman@sift.info>) id 1US4xH-0005al-MJ
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:25:49 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rpgoldman@sift.info>) id 1US4xC-0000rQ-BE
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:25:47 -0400
Received: from 23-25-144-217-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
	([23.25.144.217]:63502 helo=mpls.sift.net)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rpgoldman@sift.info>) id 1US4xC-0000rE-6G
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:25:42 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87eheasy9k.fsf@ucl.ac.uk>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: "<emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>" <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>

Well, but note that we don't use file URLs -- we have special org hyperlinks=
 with their own syntax...

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....

It seems like false advertising to adopt a scheme without playing by its rul=
es: I'd be happier doing this if I had an RFC 3966-compliant parser to use..=
.. All I have done so far is trust that phone: is followed by something the o=
rg-phone-call can deal with.

What do you all think? Am I being too fussy?

On Apr 16, 2013, at 2:57, Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Michael Strey <mstrey@strey.biz> writes:
>=20
>> Here is the most important part of Mat's reply:
>>=20
>> ,----
>> | note that "tel:" is a common uri for indicating that something is a
>> | telephone number (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3966)
>> `----
>>=20
>> Seems that we should prefer 'tel' as key for the phone link.
>=20
> +1
> --=20
> : Eric S Fraga, GnuPG: 0xC89193D8FFFCF67D
> : in Emacs 24.3.50.1 and Org release_7.9.3f-1199-g3a0e55
>=20