Dear Mr Reid, Please note that in your email signature you should present your telephone number in canonical format, ie +cc aaa nnnn, rather than the way it is displayed below, which is of no use to people outside Canada and the US. It should read, +1 (416) 486 6071 or +1 416 486 6071, with parentheses around the area code being optional. (It is necessary to follow both the country code and the area code with a space so that people and automatic dialing systems know where each component of the total telephone number begins and ends. The use of spaces and hyphens for readability within the nnnn portion is optional.)
As some countries don't have a standard for length of area code or local number, it is important to use parentheses or spaces correctly. Consider the UK, for instance, where phone numbers have no fixed length for any part of the phone number. City/area codes can have 2, 3 or 4 digits, while local numbers can have 5, 6, 7 or 8 digits. As in the US, it is important to think of phone numbers as being the combination of area code plus local number. If I add a new phone line in my home in Boston, the area code might not be 617 like my other numbers, as it has always been. It could be one of three different area codes. I must dial the full ten digits to call a different line in my own apartment, whether or not the area code is the same as the line from which I am dialing. Hence, phone numbers here are really ten digits. In the UK, all mobile phones numbers begin with the same area code digit, so it is not possible to locate the registered address of a mobile phone by knowing its number. What SHOULD NOT be done, as many of my European colleagues erroneously do, is to preface the area code with a "(0)" to indicate that "0" is the long distance prefix for national calls within that country. Another common error is to use "001" rather than the "+" for European numbers, something which is only of benefit to others within that country. (Some Americans who do not know their country code is "1" place a "+" in front of their area code, which further compounds the confusion.) National callers will know what their long distance prefix is. They will also know what their prefix is for international dialing. Use of this long-standing standard simplifies presenting information about ones telephone numbers in a way that is comprehensible throughout the world. Many computer programs, such as Microsoft Outlook, understand this format, and even prompts users to enter telephone numbers correctly, providing assistance as required. (I do wish it would make the parentheses optional.) MS Outlook also knows that when one tells it to dial a selected phone number, that it must replace the "+" with the international dialing prefix used in the country where the user is located at the time of initiating the call. When one synchronizes MS Outlook numbers (or those in any other PIM or contact manager) to a GSM phone, the networks informs the phone about the national location of the person placing the call, and automatically substitutes that country's international dialing prefix for the "+" when calling a number listed in the address book of the mobile phone. What could be simpler? It is all made possible by GSM networks adherence to the canonical phone number format. I don't mean to pick on you, Mr Reid, about this subject; rather I want to introduce the canonical telephone number format for discussion to emphasize the importance of this standard. Best regards, Brent Brent Cliveden Vice President, General Manager, North America TEAMworks Clinical Services Inc _____ +1 617 nnn nnnn Telephone +1 617 nnn nnnn Fax +1 617 nnn nnnn Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joseph B. Reid Sent: 10 April 2002 09.34 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:19374] Re: Evolution of standards of measurement Ma Be wrote in USMA 19351: >Yesterday I was browsing through their recent reports concerning this >change and discovered that they apparently are facing some dilemmas on >this, and I gather (and am somewhat "relieved" and taking solace) that >they are cognizant of my position since they seem to continue to consider >that the use of wavelengths may not be entirely abandoned after all, I >don't know. Perhaps you or someone else here can shed some light on this >controversy. Appendix 1 of the metric bible states that the CPGM of 1975 redommended a value for the speed of light. The second is the most accurately defined unit that we have. It is axiomatic that c = speed of light = lamda X frequency. The frequency of a laser can be determined, and by the equation, so can its wavelength. This gives a standard of length that is more accurate than the previous metal bars. It could be stated that it as based on the wavelength of a radiation of a specified frequency, or as the path travelled by light in a specified time interval. The CPGM decided in favor of the latter form of the statement. Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071
