[uf-discuss] uF's on stand-alone phone numbers.
martin at weborganics.co.uk
Thu Aug 23 14:43:55 PDT 2007
On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 13:24 -0700, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> Hello Martin,
> On 8/23/07, Martin McEvoy <martin at weborganics.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Just because you can identify someone (or some group) by a phone
> > > number doesn't make that their "name".
> > >
> > > It's like... you can identify someone by their SIN (... or Social
> > > Security # in the USA)... but that does NOT make that their name. And
> > > thus you would NOT put a "fn" on that.
> > FN  represents the name of the object not a person so to speak
> > so the use of fn in Andys example is fair use I would say.
> In the example we had, as I understood it, this is a telephone number
> of a person or a company.
> So... the "object" is either a person or a company.
so you dont think the telephone number is the object ?
I see your example
could be marked up as
<h2>ENUM lookup results for <span class="fn"><span class="adr tel">+43 780 004711</span></span></h2>
email:mailto <a class="email" href="mailto:info at nemox.net">
mailto:info at nemox.net
sip <a class="url" href="sip:enum-test at sip.nemox.net">
sip:enum-test at sip.nemox.net
web:http <a class="url" href="http://q.nemox.net/">
> And given that, I would say that it isn't "fair" to apply the "fn" to
> the telephone number, since it is NOT the name of a person or object.
I understand you Charles it doesn't seem appropriate to use fn in this
way but the telephone number here does not represent a person does it?
it seems to be many people or an organisation.
> I do understand what you are saying... that the telephone number if
> the object (and not a person or a company)... but I don't think that
> is what the website that that came from is shooting for. Correct me
> if I'm wrong though... but seems that the number is suppose to belong
> to some person or company.
> See ya
More information about the microformats-discuss