Re: [VCARDDAV] Pseudo-properties in reports, was: vcarddav WGLC on draft-ietf-vcarddav-{carddav, mkcol}

From: Arnaud Quillaud <Arnaud.Quillaud@Sun.COM> · Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:37:54 +0100

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Arnaud Quillaud wrote:
>> I think all the points below are valid, except that CardDAV is simply 
>> following the approach taken by CalDAV.
>> Given the similarities between the 2 protocols, and given that people 
>> implementing one are likely to implement the other, it will be very 
>> confusing if we start to diverge (and it won't simplify 
>> implementations).
> > ...
>
> Well, it *is* confusing for people who haven't implemented CalDAV, but 
> other WebDAV extensions, such as SEARCH (which successfully avoided 
> overloading properties).
My feeling is that there are many more clients/servers doing CalDAV + 
CardDAV than clients/server doing CardDAV + SEARCH but of course I have 
no numbers to back that statement.

Arnaud Q
>
> So I personally think if we need to choose between "the right way" and 
> "the CalDAV way", we should choose the former (and this also applies 
> to other aspecs I haven't mentioned yet, such as the requirements on 
> ETag behavior).
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VCARDDAV mailing list
> VCARDDAV@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav