Terry Simpson, replying to me, very helpfully
pointed to a useful web site with some very clear guidelines: http://www.ngi.org/enum/pub/Draft_Rec_E123.htm reflecting ITU Recommendation E.123 (02/01) Notation for national
and international telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Web addresses Approved
in 2001-02. Status : In force.
Sections 2.3 and 2.6 provide examples of how one may structure both the national and international formats if one chooses to display both formats of a telephone number, rather than just displaying the international format.
I have instructed staff to display only the international format when sending telephone number details to colleagues or clients within their own (European) country, as it very often happens that such an email message is eventually forwarded by the recipient to someone in anther country who then does not know what the proper country code is for the original reference.
Best regards,
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf
Of Jim Gottlieb
Sent: 10 April 2002 17.55
To: U.S. Metric
Association
Subject: [USMA:19399] Re: Evolution of standards of
measurement
On 2002-04-10 at 23:22, Louis JOURDAN
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I use to write my phone number as +33
(0)2 9927 2588.
Technically, that's wrong. It should be +33 2 9927
2588. However, I
do sometimes see it as you wrote it, to indicate to
people in their own
country that they should dial a 0 first.
As with
other international standards, Americans are the worst when it
comes to phone
numbers. They assume there are no other countries and
rarely include
the country code. In fact, most Americans have no idea
what their
country code is. Then sometimes I see Americans trying to
do it right
and printing their New Hampshire number as: +603 555 2368,
which would really
be a number in Malaysia.
--
Jim Gottlieb | E-Mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
|
V-Mail: +1 619 364 6912 | Fax: +1 858 274
8181
My Home Page URL: http://tokyojim.com/
