- From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:05:33 +0200
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Apologies for the strong language ;) As Martin says, I don't think we are forking. It's in general our audience that doesn't understand the difference between: <a rel="vcard:tel" href="tel:+1-789-887-799"/> and <span property="vcard:tel">+1-789-887-799</span> I'd be already happy if they knew what the + sign meant and that 1 is the country code for the country in which they live in ;) The authors of the vcard spec no doubt have a different audience, I assume the makers of email/address book/calendaring software. Cheers, Peter Dan Brickley wrote: > On 23/7/09 11:38, Peter Mika wrote: >> Yes, but you have to do the reality check: how many people have heard of >> >> #1 http >> #2 mailto >> #3 tel >> #4 geo >> .... > > Don't shoot the messenger! I'm not advocating pro or anti on this. > Both options suck in different ways :) > > But if you have a strong view, please do provide feedback to the IETF > through their preferred channels, before doing something under the > vCard brand that could be perceived as a "fork". I'd also suggest not > using language like "reality check" if you want them to take your > feedback positively, since it suggests the alternate design came from > people who were not realists... > > cheers, > > Dan >
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 10:06:35 UTC