W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-contacts-coord@w3.org > July to September 2010

Fwd: Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)

From: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:04:23 +0200
To: public-contacts-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vjro5lcxbww0bg@rich-mac.local>
FYI some clarifications on the W3C Contacts API.

We also now include extension recommendations in the spec [1] to allow  
extended properties and parameters to be defined bilaterally between user  
agents without outside registration or standardization. Not to say that  
future versions can't make any such properties standard in the future  
(akin to the vCard approach).


------- Forwarded message -------
From: "Rich Tibbett" <richt@opera.com>
To: public-device-apis@w3.org, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, "Suresh  
Chitturi" <schitturi@rim.com>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:43:22 +0200

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:30:21 +0200, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:10:53 +0200, Suresh Chitturi wrote:
>> While reviewing the Contacts API updated draft, my main concern at this  
>> point lies with the contact format used by the API. It largely  
>> continues to use/refer to the schema from Portable Contacts, but we  
>> have seen equal interest to use other formats such as vCard and OMA CAB.
> Contrary to some belief the spec is not built solely around Portable  
> Contacts. It just happens that the PoCo spec has some pretty neat  
> descriptions of the elements that we are using and rather than  
> copy/paste we just refer to those descriptions instead. It is not  
> intentionally reliant on the PoCo spec. Perhaps we should just describe  
> the elements directly in our spec instead,
> The attributes used in the W3C Contacts API equally belong to the vCard  
> standard.
>> Can we please add this topic to this week’s agenda so we may try to  
>> discuss how this can be resolved going forward?
> Do you have any new proposals for moving this topic forward on the call  
> tomorrow? Otherwise, this has been discussed as a general concept to  
> death. Let's get to specifics...
>> Starting with the fields, I am generally happy with the set of contact  
>> attributes in the current spec which are compatible with fields in  
>> vCard [RFC 2426], and OMA CAB based on my checks
> Great! Thanks for cross-checking this.
>> , except the following ones:
>> -          updated
> = vCard 'rev' field (v2.1-v4).
>> -          relationships
> = vCard 'relation' field (v4 only but quite easily 'x-relation' for  
> vCard v2.1-v3).


>> -          anniversary (not present in vCard)
> = vCard 'anniversary' field (v4 only but quite easily 'x-anniversary'  
> for vCard v2.1-v3).
>> I’d suggest that we address this in multiple steps e.g. as below
>> 1)      Agree on the set of fields to include
> It seems we agree on the general fields pending discussion of the above  
> 3 fields (updated, relationships and anniversary).
>> 2)      Decide on the structure and semantics of the selected fields
> This we must and should continue to work on within the spec and I  
> encourage all feedback on this stuff at any time on the mailing list.
>> 3)      Address the mapping of these fields to other known formats
>> 4)      Extension mechanisms (which we seem to have in place and it  
>> looks fairly ok to me)
> Please keep it coming if you continue to have concerns. We promise to  
> please everybody none of the time...but we're trying hard to be better.
> - Rich

Rich Tibbett
Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 00:05:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:38:00 UTC