The current practice in many applications involves specifying extra
fields with names like "SIP Address" and "XMPP address" as if they are
alternatives to "Home" and "Office". I would rather see those other
fields abolished and just focus on using "Work" or "Home" addresses.
E.g. somebody may have two work addresses, one is a phone number and the
other is a SIP address
I would not mandate the scheme prefix, it breaks interoperability with
other software, like when you synchronize your addressbook with your
Mac, PC and a smart phone. Surely, some of the software will not
understand the scheme prefix.
My feeling is that the address book (e.g. Evolution) should convert them
to E.164 and then give Jitsi a tel: URI
As I mentioned earlier, if you want to encourage more software to use
your phone interface, then do not push more responsibilities (and
dependencies) to it. Much better would be to normalize the phone number
in one place, rather than on each, which would be interested in a call
of your "server" to manage the URI.
I know it is against the RFC (I forgot the exact number) describing the
tel: URI, but from the application point of view it's better, because
you avoid code duplication. Having an ability to pass whatever junk a
user filled into the Telephone/... fields to the interested application
and it eventually returning an error or anything to the user about
reasons why that junk had been rejected, sounds better to me. Again, for
code duplication reason.
On Mon, 2014-05-12 at 13:24 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: