2 ms·
I fail to understand your point. Yes, lots of people share names. But it should be enough to store _one_ handle to get to (=> resolve) your _current_ number. T
by darklajid 15y ago
I fail to understand your point. Yes, lots of people share names. But it should be enough to store _one_ handle to get to (=> resolve) your _current_ number.
That might be your domain or email address. Or something totally different.
The major part for me here is not 'do we need digits without meaning', it is 'bind some name to a way of contacting the person'.
DNS as a comparison makes sense for me. I store john@smith.com as a contact. When I want to call that guy my phone figures out how to reach him _and he can update that information_.
Just like you can move your domain name to point to a different number. If the name server is under your control (or your hoster loves you) and ignoring certain limitations of the protocol and buggy caching behavior, you could even change the result of a lookup every minute. That, for phone numbers, would be awesome.
- prof_hobart 15y agoBecause a)that doesn't get rid of the need for address books - even with email I still need an address book to tell me which John Smith I want to email, and b) that's got absolutely nothing to do with the Path issue - them uploading my address book with a single phone number/phone DNS whatever for my contacts without my permission is just as bad as them uploading my address book with 5 different phone numbers for each of my contacts