- From: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:56:35 +0100
- To: <dom@w3.org>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi, Firstly, apologies that I missed the call yesterday as I had an ill-timed travel arrangement that cut right through the meeting. We initially started with a full mapping to vCard attributes in the Contacts API. We have done this exercise previously in this group. The historical (read: out-of-date) editor's draft that provides such a full vCard mapping can be found here [1]. Following the publication of this draft, we adopted a small (sub)set of Contact attributes around 4 basic principles: 1. Promote what we absolutely need in the first instance. Future versions can promote what we really think should be in this API on top of those fundamental attributes and allows us more time to assess individual attributes on a case-by-case basis [2]. 2. Support the smallest possible set of Contact attributes now and allow extension attributes to be created by implementations that can be proposed to the W3C DAP group (following e.g. wide spread adoption) for inclusion in future Address Book APIs. This means allowing the market to lead on this stuff without being overly presciptive in the first instance. The Contact attributes that have been included to date follow an intersection exercise around the Address Book attributes of existing implementations which denotes that they are widely supported [3]. 3. Contact attributes quickly become useless for cross-platform, cross-service usage if they are not widely (i.e. always) supported in all implementations. We don't want to introduce optionality in to the Contact attributes at an early stage but will adopt attributes on an ongoing basis. 4. There are incompatibilities between vCard, Portable Contacts, OpenSocial and other Address Book services (e.g. OMA CAB [4]) [5] - so if we choose one that could come at the detriment of others. Supporting a subset of commen attributes as we do now doesn't introduce fragmentation, albeit at te cost of limited functionality until we can settle on a rich, practical, interop set of attributes to include. Perhaps we could come up with a general process for proposing new attributes that includes a checklist on the practicality of any particular attribute based on the principles above. The same discussion applies to Calendar Event attributes included. Kind Regards, Richard [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2009/dap/contacts/Overview.html?rev= 1.14&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#idl-def-ContactPropert ies [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Nov/0251.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec/0010.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec/0066.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Nov/0047.html ---------- | | Rich Tibbett | | Orange Labs UK | orange | E: richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com ---------- > -----Original Message----- > From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Dominique Hazael-Massieux > Sent: 27 January 2010 16:11 > To: public-device-apis@w3.org > Subject: Past discussions on vCard datamodel for contacts API > (ISSUE-71) > > Hi, > > During the call today we raised an issue on the difference of > data model between the Contacts API and vcard, the Calendar > API and vcalendar (ISSUE-71). > > I've documented in Tracker links to the previous discussions > we had on this topic for the Contacts API: > * IETF and IPR questions > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec /0004..html > * vCard vs Portable Contacts > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Nov /0045..html > * comparison of properties supported across platforms > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec /0010..html > * decision to trim down Contacts API properties > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2009Dec /att-0154/02-dap-minutes.html#item03 > http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/track/issues/71 > > HTH, > > Dom > > > > ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************
Received on Thursday, 28 January 2010 11:57:47 UTC