I synchronize with contacts between Outlook and mobile phones. Because I
often travel internationally, I want the numbers to be in fully-qualified,
dialable-from-anywhere format. The best way for a US number is
+1-xyx-abcdefg. Of course, international formats will have different numbers
of digits in the country code, city/area code, and number positions. But if
stored this way, I find that numbers can be quickly dialed from anywhere to
anywhere with great results. Now, why should Outlook not allow me to store
them in the general way?

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...tlook.contacts

Masking of phone numbers in Outlook is hard coded and not subject to
end user configuration. It is standard international format. That design is
intentional. Outlook's formats must
be consistent. How can developers of synchronization software write programs
if they don't know what format Outlook's data will be?
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"KC" wrote in message
...
I synchronize with contacts between Outlook and mobile phones. Because I
often travel internationally, I want the numbers to be in fully-qualified,
dialable-from-anywhere format. The best way for a US number is
+1-xyx-abcdefg. Of course, international formats will have different
numbers
of digits in the country code, city/area code, and number positions. But
if
stored this way, I find that numbers can be quickly dialed from anywhere
to
anywhere with great results. Now, why should Outlook not allow me to store
them in the general way?

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...tlook.contacts

I agree with KC.
Outlook's way of formatting phone numbers is not the way international phone
numbers are to be formatted. It should be one of following, but not the way
it is done in Outlook.
+1xyxabcdefg
+1 xyx abcdefg
+1-xyx-abcdefg


"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

Masking of phone numbers in Outlook is hard coded and not subject to
end user configuration. It is standard international format. That design is
intentional. Outlook's formats must
be consistent. How can developers of synchronization software write programs
if they don't know what format Outlook's data will be?
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"KC" wrote in message
...
I synchronize with contacts between Outlook and mobile phones. Because I
often travel internationally, I want the numbers to be in fully-qualified,
dialable-from-anywhere format. The best way for a US number is
+1-xyx-abcdefg. Of course, international formats will have different
numbers
of digits in the country code, city/area code, and number positions. But
if
stored this way, I find that numbers can be quickly dialed from anywhere
to
anywhere with great results. Now, why should Outlook not allow me to store
them in the general way?

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...tlook.contacts

The first format that magoo cites would not be suitable for non-U.S/Canada numbers, because it provides no distinction among the country code, area/region/city code, and actual number. The other two formats do provide a distinction, but at what price? The canonical format that Outlook uses (see http://technet2.microsoft.com/Window...7ca5a1033.mspx) has been employed by TAPI applications for more than 10 years. If the format were changed, it probably would break many autodialing, fax, and other applications that depend on consistent formatting of the different parts of a phone number .

That said, you have always been able to use whatever format you want by preceding the number with a comma. That serves to tell Outlook not to put the number into canonical format.
--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm
and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"magoo" wrote in message ...
I agree with KC.
Outlook's way of formatting phone numbers is not the way international phone
numbers are to be formatted. It should be one of following, but not the way
it is done in Outlook.
+1xyxabcdefg
+1 xyx abcdefg
+1-xyx-abcdefg


"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

Masking of phone numbers in Outlook is hard coded and not subject to
end user configuration. It is standard international format. That design is
intentional. Outlook's formats must
be consistent. How can developers of synchronization software write programs
if they don't know what format Outlook's data will be?
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"KC" wrote in message
...
I synchronize with contacts between Outlook and mobile phones. Because I
often travel internationally, I want the numbers to be in fully-qualified,
dialable-from-anywhere format. The best way for a US number is
+1-xyx-abcdefg. Of course, international formats will have different
numbers
of digits in the country code, city/area code, and number positions. But
if
stored this way, I find that numbers can be quickly dialed from anywhere
to
anywhere with great results. Now, why should Outlook not allow me to store
them in the general way?

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...tlook.contacts