Alright, guess I'll be using email verification
As long as you do not limit the email to certain popular providers then it is a good solution.
Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
21–30 of 209 posts
Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#22Alright, guess I'll be using email verification
As long as you don't try to validate the email address I entered. The list of gotchas for email address parsing is impressive too. (e.g. "Cool Address"@example.store is a valid email)
These might be valid but nobody uses them and nobody will complain if you do not support them.
Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#23I have/had a Facebook account with a phone number. The account was left unused for a few years. Recently, I used my E-mail to reset its password, unfortunately, since the account was abandoned for a long time, the system flagged my activity as "suspicious" automatically, and asks me for confirmation using my phone number. But I no longer own that number. And from the customer Q&A forum, I realized I was not the only…
fxxk Facebook
Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#24I think this all lumps into nobody really knowing everything about phone numbers, email addresses, and time
Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as you don't try to validate the email address I entered. The list of gotchas for email address parsing is impressive too. (e.g. "Cool Address"@example.store is a valid email)
These might be valid but nobody uses them and nobody will complain if you do not support them.
[deleted]
Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#26> An individual has only one phone number Always feel these lists include things no human actually believes.
I think it's hyperbole for "things you should be careful about". Obviously nobody really believes every human on the planet has a phone number, or only one, or that there don't exist people who share phone numbers... or pretty much every other item in this list :P
I think it was a riff on the "falsehoods programmers believe about names" article, which is a bit more insightful.
Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#27Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#28I would personally add one (maybe I'll do a PR): Phone number formats never change for a particular country. Vietnam just removed a few months ago one digit of all the mobile phones making all the previous number recorded for the country invalid.
So much this. Iran's phone number formats have changed at least 4 times in the past 20 years, and I am sure many more times if you go back a couple more decades.
Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#29Programmers don't actually believe in such falsehoods, nor do they just decide to be lazy about implementation. In fact if anything programmers are generally more aware of such things. A better name for these lists would be "falsehoods businesses insist on despite their engineers warnings".
Re: Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers (2016)
#30A few of these were new to me. I think people who come to phone numbers before Internet knew about the ITU decision to adopt a semi-efficient distribution by size model, so the numbers +x[y[z]] were given out for volume, not order-of-application. +1 was 'North America' Not the USA in this model.
the +88 and Taiwan is an interesting situation. The phone companies agree to do efficient routing to the TW IDD but China refuses to formally recognize it in the ITU. So, its routed optimally, even if the prefix routing should honour Chinese (mainland) intent according to the model (thats how I have heard it. I don't know how accurate this is)
Telefonica runs several mobile operations in LatAM and I am told that numbers can be somewhat mobile (sorry) across borders.
I also know of AT&T subscribers who are domiciled in Canada and who are flouting some rules to get the phone roaming behaviours they want.