- From: Nick Allott <nick.allott@omtp.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:55:19 -0000
- To: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Has anyone got insights they would like to share on the general failure of syncml (based on vcard) to succeed in the market. I have a sneaking suspicion richness of vcard means that in real world deployments field mappings become highly fragile. (results in end users losing data ;) I raise only because I would not like mistakes to be repeated. -nick -----Original Message----- From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com Sent: 01 December 2009 12:04 To: public-device-apis@w3.org Subject: [contacts] vCard version 4 update [non-FPWD critical path discussion -> point 1 in [FPWD-CRITERIA]: discussion on interface attributes] Hi, Can we reference IETF draft documents in our specifications? Looking at the Contacts API [1] (which seems to be the mode at the moment) it may be better to refer to vCard v4 [2], currently in draft at IETF, rather than the relatively old references to vCard that are currently used [3], [4]. vCard v4 introduces useful attribute updates (e.g. anniversay, gender, etc) and removes fairly useless attributes (e.g. mailer) that could be reflected in our API. Kind Regards, Richard [FPWD-CRITERIA] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Nov/0247.html [1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/contacts/ [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-09 [3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2426 [4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 14:56:01 UTC