W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Past discussions on vCard datamodel for contacts API (ISSUE-71)

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:23:36 +0100
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, <dom@w3.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F0F5ECF0-178F-4542-8399-F8ADD5A6042C@w3.org>
To: "Suresh Chitturi" <schitturi@rim.com>
On 28 Jan 2010, at 23:49, Suresh Chitturi wrote:

> In addition, I would like to state the market is already very much fragmented in this space.

We certainly don't help it by adding further fragmentation.  The current working draft (when looked at from a vcard perspective) does precisely that.  E.g., how is the "premises" attribute mapped into vcard?

> It is only a model that is used to transport contact information and our use case is not really that but to give web apps the data from the "underlying address books".

I disagree with that scope point.  The API we're talking about should: 

- be able to deal with address books that reside on the network; for these, vcard is the standard of record  (feel free to suggest another one)
- be useful as a JSON binding that can be used as a network transport

(There's, in fact, a requirements discussion in here that's perhaps best framed in those very terms.)

One way to achieve that would be to indeed focus on the API framework, and simply define a mechanical mapping from vcard to JavaScript objects.
Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 12:23:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:41 UTC