boomerbubba wrote:But please, let's have a standard. And once there is a standard, how about some validation?
The format mask of 000-000-0000 tends to work better on most printouts (both within MLS and in other publications I have seen) than does 000.000.0000. But the consensus on that may be changing. The guidelines I use is if the telephone book listed numbers as 000-000-0000 or 000.000.0000 which format mask is least confusing visually, especially once you start combining other formatting such as underlining (as in hyperlinks), italics, bold face, etc.
John Doe....................000-000-0000
John Doe....................000-000-0000John Doe....................000-000-0000John Doe....................000-000-0000John Doe....................000-000-0000John Doe....................000-000-0000 John Doe....................000.000.0000
John Doe....................000.000.0000John Doe....................000.000.0000John Doe....................000.000.0000John Doe....................000.000.0000John Doe....................000.000.0000
By "validation" are you saying that MLS should enforce a format mask on the telephone number? If so, I think that would be helpful during the initial entry of the phone number, but if the format mask can't be overridden, then I am against it. There are legitimate reasons for being able to override whatever format mask is used.
For now, I think MLS is just fine the way it is, and the rest of us just need to figure out our own solution instead of expecting a one-size-fits-all solution from CHQ. The flexibility of the current free-form fields just works. IMO, training and vigilance are the simple solution for this issue.