Write letters to your Member of Parliament, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Honourable James Moore.

Write letters to your local newspapers and the national newspapers.

Talk to your friends. Talk to strangers.

If you’re in school, work UBB into essays, theses, and term papers.

If you’re at work, make comments in proposals, quotations, and on the cover page of your TPS report.

Blog.

Tweet.

Dent.

–Bob.

What is your suggestion, Robert; what do you think I, a Canadian citizen and an Internet user, should do?

I’m guessing that’s what a CRIA record label charges back to the artists.

This post was mentioned on Identica by bobjonkman: Transcript of @jessebrown’s #Search_Engine interview with Charlie Angus: http://ur1.ca/t2a1...

Are you using the vanilla theme? I could probably help you fix it up

About the inserting tel: links : do you have the WYSIWYG editor off completely, or are you using the “code” tab on it? Turning it off is much safer.

I also use http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/x-valid/ to make sure that commentors cannot insert markup that breaks my well-formedness.

It seems that the ITU (or at least the authors of E.123) don’t understand the requirements of URI syntax. In setting a standard to make a written phone number visually appealing, E.123 created a syntax incompatible with URIs. Spaces in a phone number make for an invalid URI. E.123 also advocates writing URLs without the scheme identifier, eg. “Web: singpolyma.net” instead of “Web: https://singpolyma.net” . While browsers are remarkably tolerant of missing schemes, as a standards conformance purist I find that E.123 does not follow RFC3986 [STD66]: Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax. It’s an important difference if you need to identify an FTP server from a Web server at the same address, or, as in your case, selecting a secure protocol instead of an insecure protocol.

Instead, following the telephone number syntax of RFC3601 provides both valid URI syntax and a human-readable presentation.

I’m not sure what makes the ITU authoritative over written correspondence or written URL presentation, but they try. But they’re not authoritative over URI schemes, and I’ll take my standards from the IETF instead.

One good thing to come out of this: In researching this comment, I found that the ITU has now released the text of E.123 as a free (as in gratis) PDF file, available from http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.123-200102-I/en.

–Bob.

This is a WordPress blog, which is oodles better than the Blogspot blog I used to use. But, as you point out it’s not perfect either.

I’m not sure if the invalid HTML comes as a result of the templates or themes I’m using, or if the WordPress code itself is sloppy. Certainly the editor is terrible. I compose the posts with the non-WYSIWYG editor, but it won’t let me insert certain types of markup. For example, I tried to put in a URL with the tel: URI scheme, but the editor won’t accept that. <a href=”tel:+1-519-635-9413″> has the “tel:” stripped out. Listen, WordPress, I’m editing the code, and you should do what I tell you to.

Sigh. Thanx for your sympathies.

–Bob.