Re: ISSUE-98: contactsDataModel (from Suresh)

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:30:21 +0200, Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:10:53 +0200, Suresh Chitturi wrote:
>>
>> While reviewing the Contacts API updated draft, my main concern at this  
>> point lies with the contact format used by the API. It largely  
>> continues to use/refer to the schema from Portable Contacts, but we  
>> have seen equal interest to use other formats such as vCard and OMA CAB.
>
> Contrary to some belief the spec is not built solely around Portable  
> Contacts. It just happens that the PoCo spec has some pretty neat  
> descriptions of the elements that we are using and rather than  
> copy/paste we just refer to those descriptions instead. It is not  
> intentionally reliant on the PoCo spec. Perhaps we should just describe  
> the elements directly in our spec instead,
>
> The attributes used in the W3C Contacts API equally belong to the vCard  
> standard.
>
>> Can we please add this topic to this week’s agenda so we may try to  
>> discuss how this can be resolved going forward?
>>
>
> Do you have any new proposals for moving this topic forward on the call  
> tomorrow? Otherwise, this has been discussed as a general concept to  
> death. Let's get to specifics...
>
>> Starting with the fields, I am generally happy with the set of contact  
>> attributes in the current spec which are compatible with fields in  
>> vCard [RFC 2426], and OMA CAB based on my checks
>
> Great! Thanks for cross-checking this.
>
>> , 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).
>

s/relation/related

>> -          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).
>
>> 2)      Decide on the structure and semantics of the selected fields
>
> This we must and should continue to work on within the spec and I  
> encourage all feedback on this stuff at any time on the mailing list.
>
>> 3)      Address the mapping of these fields to other known formats
>> 4)      Extension mechanisms (which we seem to have in place and it  
>> looks fairly ok to me)
>>
>
> Please keep it coming if you continue to have concerns. We promise to  
> please everybody none of the time...but we're trying hard to be better.
>
> - Rich

Received on Tuesday, 28 September 2010 23:44:02 UTC