- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:23:34 +0200
- To: Rich Tibbett <richt@opera.com>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
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.
--
Robin Berjon
robineko — hired gun, higher standards
http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 13:24:05 UTC