W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > August 2010

Re: contact formats -- IETF/OMA/PoCo/W3C convergence?

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:00:00 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinPPJ0rVzrApnuRSm9qOsqh+55Y9Y92eC6kvxnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com>
Cc: Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, Joseph Smarr <jsmarr@google.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Cristina Badulescu <cristina.badulescu@ericsson.com>, Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, jsmarr@stanfordalumni.org, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Mike Hanson <mhanson@mozilla.com>, Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, simon.perreault@viagenie.ca, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, W3C Device APIs and Policy WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Victoria.Gray@forapolis.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, msk@cloudmark.com
I remember a while ago on the vcarddav list that the criteria for
including new features in vCard4 mentioned something about features /
fields that Address Book / Contacts applications have (commonly? or
just at least 2?) implemented above and beyond vCard3, hence features
like ANNIVERSARY.

Marc, Cyrus - you can likely find/reference the respective
emails/threads on vCard4 scope much better than I - that would be a
useful reference to help frame the interop/compat discussion.

Thanks,

Tantek


On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think one of the questions to be answered comes down to process and
> goals.
> PoCo was designed to be a strict superset of vCard v2.0 (?), and pulled in
> attributes from OpenSocial in order to achieve wider adoption. Still, rather
> than invent a new schema, PoCo borrowed from what had already been
> established and was well understood and widely adopted (albeit, the existing
> schemas had limitations, but embracing constraints was a design goal, rather
> than an accident).
> In 2008, I did conducted a loose survey of the existing contact APIs and did
> a mapping between them:
> http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/06/04/inventing-contact-schemas-for-fun-and-profit-ugh/
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pSGbbhtwI4kN_nJ1GXeQ7Qg
> From my brief encounters with the vCard v4.0 schema, I've been hard pressed
> to find examples in the wild of the needs that should be driving new schema
> and new attributes. That's not to say that the need isn't there, but the
> process is foreign to me.
> Perhaps someone more versed in the v4.0 work could suggest the process for
> introducing new attributes and what bar must be met for such modifies to be
> accepted?
> Chris
>
> 2010/8/25 Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>
>>
>> The W3C DAP Contacts API is operating in the space between the device and
>> the web in a similar way to the 'Mozilla Lab's Contacts as First Class
>> objects' initiative [1]. We're not the first group to need to consider what
>> 'contact' should mean in this mode - whether we accept a device-facing (e.g.
>> vCard) or web-facing (e.g. PoCo) paradigm or whether there is sane
>> singularity to be found somewhere in between.
>> I wonder if discussions within IETF vcarddav on aligning Portable Contacts
>> and vCard is producing any results and whether vCard v4 is capable of
>> providing mappings or alignment to Portable Contacts...and by proxy
>> long-needed clarity to this issue within W3C, prior to publication of the
>> vCard v4 RFC.
>> We will not invent a new contact format or a subset thereof within W3C. In
>> order to make that assumption stick we need some clear signals from your
>> respective working groups on a unified way forward wrt contact formats.
>> - Rich
>> [1] http://mozillalabs.com/contacts
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +jsmarr as the "godfather" of Portable Contacts, who I know has a strong
>>> opinion on this issue!
>>> +1 for interest in resolving this issue, and coming out with a *sane*,
>>> pragmatic path forward.
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Marc Blanchet
>>> <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - added Peter Saint-Andre, IETF Apps AD, AD for vcarddav
>>>> - agreed. we should have a discussion, asap.
>>>> - I'm available.
>>>> - suggestion: create a doodle pool for conf call timing.
>>>>
>>>> Marc.
>>>>
>>>> Le 10-08-25 11:24, Thomas Roessler a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> this note is addressed to various individuals involved in contact
>>>>> format related work at and liaison relationships between W3C, IETF, OMA, and
>>>>> Portable Contacts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The W3C Device API WG is working on a JavaScript API for address books:
>>>>>        http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/
>>>>>
>>>>> The API's contact data model is currently based on the Portable
>>>>> Contacts data model.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand that the IETF carddav WG would prefer us to base our work
>>>>> on a model that is compatible with vcard4.  We further understand that the
>>>>> vcardrev draft has been in WG last call for a while.  It appears that there
>>>>> have been recent comments on the IETF carddav WG's mailing list that suggest
>>>>> a discussion about alignment between PoCo and vcard4.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further, we have received a liaison note from OMA that suggests that we
>>>>> possibly adapt OMA's Converged Address Book work.  We understand that the
>>>>> OMA format is about to be frozen as well:
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/docs/OMA-LS_877-OMA_COM_to_W3C_Contact_Fields_Attachment-20100823-A.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> The W3C Device API WG is currently reviewing the various specifications
>>>>> and trying to see in detail where the formats agree or disagree; that work
>>>>> should be done within a week.  (Kudos to Rich Tibbett at Opera Software.)
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like an informal discussion about overall directions for the
>>>>> various contacts formats, based on that review, would be beneficial in order
>>>>> to see whether further fragmentation can be avoided.  We're willing to host
>>>>> a phone conference for this conversation at W3C.
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose of this e-mail is to see whether there is interest in this
>>>>> sort of conversation, and whether there are timing considerations that we
>>>>> all should be aware of.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thomas Roessler, W3C<tlr@w3.org>   (@roessler)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> =========
>>>> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
>>>> Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
>>>> DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca
>>>> NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Messina
>>> Open Web Advocate, Google
>>>
>>> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
>>> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
>>> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>>>
>>> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Messina
> Open Web Advocate, Google
>
> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina
>
> This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
>



-- 
http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2010 14:00:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 29 August 2010 14:00:59 GMT