W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2009

Re: vCard RDF merge....

From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:05:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4A6835ED.9000600@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Apologies for the strong language ;)

As Martin says, I don't think we are forking. It's in general our 
audience that doesn't understand the difference between:

<a rel="vcard:tel" href="tel:+1-789-887-799"/>


<span property="vcard:tel">+1-789-887-799</span>

I'd be already happy if they knew what the + sign meant and that 1 is 
the country code for the country in which they live in ;)

The authors of the vcard spec no doubt have a different audience, I 
assume the makers of email/address book/calendaring software.


Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 23/7/09 11:38, Peter Mika wrote:
>> Yes, but you have to do the reality check: how many people have heard of
>> #1 http
>> #2 mailto
>> #3 tel
>> #4 geo
>> ....
> Don't shoot the messenger! I'm not advocating pro or anti on this. 
> Both options suck in different ways :)
> But if you have a strong view, please do provide feedback to the IETF 
> through their preferred channels, before doing something under the 
> vCard brand that could be perceived as a "fork". I'd also suggest not 
> using language like "reality check" if you want them to take your 
> feedback positively, since it suggests the alternate design came from 
> people who were not realists...
> cheers,
> Dan
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 10:06:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:34 UTC