W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > October 2010

Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)

From: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:52:54 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA9B206.7060908@opera.com>
To: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, public-device-apis@w3.org, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com

Suresh Chitturi wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:24 AM
> To: Rich Tibbett
> Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org; Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 01:30 , Rich Tibbett wrote:
>>> , except the following ones:
>>> -          updated
>> = vCard 'rev' field (v2.1-v4).
>>> -          relationships
>> = vCard 'relation' field (v4 only but quite easily 'x-relation' for
> vCard v2.1-v3).
>>> -          anniversary (not present in vCard)
>> = vCard 'anniversary' field (v4 only but quite easily 'x-anniversary'
> for vCard v2.1-v3).
>>> I'd suggest that we address this in multiple steps e.g. as below
>>> 1)      Agree on the set of fields to include
>> It seems we agree on the general fields pending discussion of the
> above 3 fields (updated, relationships and anniversary).
> Right, so my question here is: how do we move forward on these? I don't
> believe we've framed the discussion on these enough that we can solve
> them on the call. What are the use cases and issues, the risks and
> rewards of supporting them?
> It seems to me that "updated" is useful for any kind of synchronisation
> (vital for cheap sync at least). I'll note that it does *not* depend on
> published (if there is no published field the PoCo requirement is simply
> moot). What are the risks?
> To me "anniversary" doesn't seem dead useful, and its semantics are
> slightly problematic. Is it appropriate to use it for civil unions? For
> cohabitation? Does it stay valid in case of divorce? How does it apply
> to poly{gamy,amory}?
> For "relationships" I'm not sure. It's certainly tempting to have people
> define their own social network locally, but this has specific semantics
> (in the PoCo text at least) of relationships having been bidirectionally
> confirmed, which seems like more than a bit of a hurdle.
> Suresh>>  I would tend to agree with these comments, and my proposal
> would be to keep these fields out at the moment, so we have a good set
> of fields that are not controversial and we can move forward on.

Based on the resolution on the conf. call last week I have removed 
'anniversary' and 'relationships' from the spec.

- Rich
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 10:54:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:23 UTC