W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > December 2009

RE: [contacts] vCard version 4 update

From: Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:55:19 -0000
Message-ID: <05AA561A00287D45B70AE18BC37624C9024CEDDC@exch-be05.exchange.local>
To: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Has anyone got insights they would like to share on the general failure
of syncml (based on vcard) to succeed in the market.

I have a sneaking suspicion richness of vcard means that in real world
deployments field mappings become highly fragile. (results in end users
losing data ;)

I raise only because I would not like mistakes to be repeated.


-nick


-----Original Message-----
From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com
Sent: 01 December 2009 12:04
To: public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: [contacts] vCard version 4 update

[non-FPWD critical path discussion -> point 1 in [FPWD-CRITERIA]:
discussion on interface attributes]

Hi,

Can we reference IETF draft documents in our specifications?

Looking at the Contacts API [1] (which seems to be the mode at the
moment) it may be better to refer to vCard v4 [2], currently in draft at
IETF, rather than the relatively old references to vCard that are
currently used [3], [4].

vCard v4 introduces useful attribute updates (e.g. anniversay, gender,
etc) and removes fairly useless attributes (e.g. mailer) that could be
reflected in our API.

Kind Regards,

Richard


[FPWD-CRITERIA]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Nov/0247.html

[1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/contacts/

[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-09

[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2426

[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:56:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:02 GMT