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

Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)

From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:38:45 +0200
Cc: "Rich Tibbett" <richt@opera.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Message-Id: <7F0581B8-8520-4A5B-9A41-A89977A132EB@robineko.com>
To: "Suresh Chitturi" <schitturi@rim.com>
On Sep 29, 2010, at 15:34 , Suresh Chitturi wrote:
> [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> It seems to me that "updated" is useful for any kind of synchronisation
> (vital for cheap sync at least). I'll note that it does *not* depend on
> published (if there is no published field the PoCo requirement is simply
> moot). What are the risks?
> 
> To me "anniversary" doesn't seem dead useful, and its semantics are
> slightly problematic. Is it appropriate to use it for civil unions? For
> cohabitation? Does it stay valid in case of divorce? How does it apply
> to poly{gamy,amory}?
> 
> For "relationships" I'm not sure. It's certainly tempting to have people
> define their own social network locally, but this has specific semantics
> (in the PoCo text at least) of relationships having been bidirectionally
> confirmed, which seems like more than a bit of a hurdle.
> 
> Suresh>> I would tend to agree with these comments, and my proposal
> would be to keep these fields out at the moment, so we have a good set
> of fields that are not controversial and we can move forward on.

That they might be controversial is not good-enough a reason to drop them  we need to know *why* they're controversial, otherwise there's no way of resolving the controversy, and no way of reaching consensus on either keeping or ditching them.

I can see arguments for dropping anniversary and relationships, but I see good reason to keep updated  for the reasons detailed above.

--
Robin Berjon
  robineko  hired gun, higher standards
  http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 13:39:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:13 GMT