On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 23:15, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > In fact, it would look pretty weird to most people if we started writing > 951-21-42-33 (or I bet they wouldn't expect that was a zip code in > any case). Similarly, if we start placing the separators in arbitrary > places in phone numbers, people get confused.
The complete uniformity of telephone numbers seems to be a North American phenomena, but as a German who is used to wildly different phone numbers, I would still prefer a common scheme for all of them, yes. > I still disagree. While I noted the one pathology with the current > system, that same pathology is present with floating colons > and there are others which I also pointed out (difficulty in > reproducing the "correct" placement of the floating colons in > automated output, for example. Even worse, allowing floating colons will mean different groups will adapt different defaults. Not a desirable goal. > The syntax for handling this was already present in IPv4 and is easily > adapted to the problem in IPv6. Simply wrap the IPv6 address in > square brackets (e.g. [2001:db8:feed::cafe]:80 is the ipv6 > address 2001:db8:feed::cafe on port 80). Which is admittedly ugly, but I can't think of anything better, either. > We did forego ::192.168.1.1. However, we still have ::ffff:192.168.1.1 > and for good reason. This is a useful construct for allowing humans > to see in log files that an IPv6-aware application on a dual-stack > machine accepted an IPv4 connection on an IPv6 socket. Agreed. Ugly, but useful & needed. Richard