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

RE: Birthday related attribute on Contact API

From: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:35:12 +0100
Message-ID: <355A518BC0575547B2A3D6773AAF8EEFA82AF0@ftrdmel1>
To: <schitturi@rim.com>, <chan@etri.re.kr>
Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On 25 Mar 2010 at 20:38, Suresh Chitturi wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 24 2010, Richard Tibbett wrote:
> >
> > On 18.03.2010 at 08:58, ̰ [chan@etri.re.kr] wrote:
> > >
> > > In the Contact API, Use Case 7 may use birthday on the 
> > > device contact 
> > > information. Then, I cant find birthday related attribute on 
> > > ContactProperties interface or other interface.
> > >
> > 
> > As a group we are still deciding on where to go with respect 
> > to the 'ContactProperties' set we will be including. Right 
> > now we have a small subset but I think we are moving towards 
> > compatibility with other common contact formats. In my view 
> > this should be Portable Contacts which inherently provides 
> > compatibility to the vCard format (both of which include 
> > 'birthday' as an attribute).
> >
> > When the scope of ContactProperties is decided, 'birthday' 
> > will become a part of this object. If that set is modelled on 
> > Portable Contacts this properties will be available along 
> > with a host of other vCard and OpenSocial properties. 
> >
> > Use Case 7 should remain and must be satisfied before 
> > publication of the spec. Once we have a richer set of 
> > ContactProperties we can get in to the issue of 
> > Lunar/Gregorian calendar support for the birthday property in 
> >more detail (which I understand is the related question here).
> >
> 
> I am not against including a "birthday" attribute to the 
> contact properties; however, I'd be very cautious if we are 
> re-opening the discussion that goes against the current 
> approach of having a "common subset" due to the technical 
> implications and interoperability concerns. It needs a wider 
> discussion I think.
> 

Right.

Use Case 7 is indicative of the wider issue of what that subset of ContactProperties should be.

We either need to satisfy this use case through support of a larger subset or remove this use case as out of scope.

For now I propose to leave it in and discuss the options further in the coming weeks.

Right now we are yo-yoing between the existing subset and a Portable Contacts/vCard compatible set. I'd be interested to get some thoughts (perhaps from the chairs) on how this issue should be resolved.

- Richard
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 11:36:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:07 GMT