On 9 Sep 2010, at 10:38, Joseph Smarr wrote: > It also defends against the "oh, looks like this spec isn't for me because it doesn't support fields X, Y, or Z that are common for my use case" problem, which I worry vCard as currently proposed will face, at least in the broader social web space. I think the issue is that someone looks at vCard (for example) and says..."there are no zodiac-sign properties" so I will go and re-invent *all* the same properties, add my zodiac-sign, use a new (different) namespace and....well you know the rest... I don't think vCard's role is to incorporate all the "social" properties one can think of....it is more the "core" properties that interest vCard. The problem then is - others are then reluctant to *reuse* the vCard semantics/namespace - preferring to re-invent all the properties again, usually with slight changes to property names etc. The other good example of this if FOAF - repeats most of the vCard properties - but does not *reuse* them. Now, just seen the OMA contacts spec and wondering if the moon is made of cheese ;-) Cheers Renato Iannella http://renato.iannella.it
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 06:13:10 UTC