- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:00:00 -0700
- To: Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com>
- Cc: Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com>, Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, Joseph Smarr <jsmarr@google.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Cristina Badulescu <cristina.badulescu@ericsson.com>, Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, jsmarr@stanfordalumni.org, Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Mike Hanson <mhanson@mozilla.com>, Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, simon.perreault@viagenie.ca, public-ietf-w3c <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, W3C Device APIs and Policy WG <public-device-apis@w3.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Victoria.Gray@forapolis.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, msk@cloudmark.com
I remember a while ago on the vcarddav list that the criteria for including new features in vCard4 mentioned something about features / fields that Address Book / Contacts applications have (commonly? or just at least 2?) implemented above and beyond vCard3, hence features like ANNIVERSARY. Marc, Cyrus - you can likely find/reference the respective emails/threads on vCard4 scope much better than I - that would be a useful reference to help frame the interop/compat discussion. Thanks, Tantek On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com> wrote: > I think one of the questions to be answered comes down to process and > goals. > PoCo was designed to be a strict superset of vCard v2.0 (?), and pulled in > attributes from OpenSocial in order to achieve wider adoption. Still, rather > than invent a new schema, PoCo borrowed from what had already been > established and was well understood and widely adopted (albeit, the existing > schemas had limitations, but embracing constraints was a design goal, rather > than an accident). > In 2008, I did conducted a loose survey of the existing contact APIs and did > a mapping between them: > http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2008/06/04/inventing-contact-schemas-for-fun-and-profit-ugh/ > http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pSGbbhtwI4kN_nJ1GXeQ7Qg > From my brief encounters with the vCard v4.0 schema, I've been hard pressed > to find examples in the wild of the needs that should be driving new schema > and new attributes. That's not to say that the need isn't there, but the > process is foreign to me. > Perhaps someone more versed in the v4.0 work could suggest the process for > introducing new attributes and what bar must be met for such modifies to be > accepted? > Chris > > 2010/8/25 Rich Tibbett <rich.tibbett@gmail.com> >> >> The W3C DAP Contacts API is operating in the space between the device and >> the web in a similar way to the 'Mozilla Lab's Contacts as First Class >> objects' initiative [1]. We're not the first group to need to consider what >> 'contact' should mean in this mode - whether we accept a device-facing (e.g. >> vCard) or web-facing (e.g. PoCo) paradigm or whether there is sane >> singularity to be found somewhere in between. >> I wonder if discussions within IETF vcarddav on aligning Portable Contacts >> and vCard is producing any results and whether vCard v4 is capable of >> providing mappings or alignment to Portable Contacts...and by proxy >> long-needed clarity to this issue within W3C, prior to publication of the >> vCard v4 RFC. >> We will not invent a new contact format or a subset thereof within W3C. In >> order to make that assumption stick we need some clear signals from your >> respective working groups on a unified way forward wrt contact formats. >> - Rich >> [1] http://mozillalabs.com/contacts >> >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> +jsmarr as the "godfather" of Portable Contacts, who I know has a strong >>> opinion on this issue! >>> +1 for interest in resolving this issue, and coming out with a *sane*, >>> pragmatic path forward. >>> Chris >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Marc Blanchet >>> <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> - added Peter Saint-Andre, IETF Apps AD, AD for vcarddav >>>> - agreed. we should have a discussion, asap. >>>> - I'm available. >>>> - suggestion: create a doodle pool for conf call timing. >>>> >>>> Marc. >>>> >>>> Le 10-08-25 11:24, Thomas Roessler a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> this note is addressed to various individuals involved in contact >>>>> format related work at and liaison relationships between W3C, IETF, OMA, and >>>>> Portable Contacts. >>>>> >>>>> The W3C Device API WG is working on a JavaScript API for address books: >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/contacts-api/ >>>>> >>>>> The API's contact data model is currently based on the Portable >>>>> Contacts data model. >>>>> >>>>> We understand that the IETF carddav WG would prefer us to base our work >>>>> on a model that is compatible with vcard4. We further understand that the >>>>> vcardrev draft has been in WG last call for a while. It appears that there >>>>> have been recent comments on the IETF carddav WG's mailing list that suggest >>>>> a discussion about alignment between PoCo and vcard4. >>>>> >>>>> Further, we have received a liaison note from OMA that suggests that we >>>>> possibly adapt OMA's Converged Address Book work. We understand that the >>>>> OMA format is about to be frozen as well: >>>>> >>>>> http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/docs/OMA-LS_877-OMA_COM_to_W3C_Contact_Fields_Attachment-20100823-A.pdf >>>>> >>>>> The W3C Device API WG is currently reviewing the various specifications >>>>> and trying to see in detail where the formats agree or disagree; that work >>>>> should be done within a week. (Kudos to Rich Tibbett at Opera Software.) >>>>> >>>>> It sounds like an informal discussion about overall directions for the >>>>> various contacts formats, based on that review, would be beneficial in order >>>>> to see whether further fragmentation can be avoided. We're willing to host >>>>> a phone conference for this conversation at W3C. >>>>> >>>>> The purpose of this e-mail is to see whether there is interest in this >>>>> sort of conversation, and whether there are timing considerations that we >>>>> all should be aware of. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> -- >>>>> Thomas Roessler, W3C<tlr@w3.org> (@roessler) >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ========= >>>> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca >>>> Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca >>>> DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca >>>> NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Messina >>> Open Web Advocate, Google >>> >>> Personal: http://factoryjoe.com >>> Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina >>> ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina >>> >>> This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private >> > > > > -- > Chris Messina > Open Web Advocate, Google > > Personal: http://factoryjoe.com > Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina > ...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina > > This email is: [ ] shareable [X] ask first [ ] private > -- http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2010 14:00:59 UTC