[calsify] jscontact - Inquiries about the "label" and "contexts" properties

skedastically <skedastically@proton.me> Fri, 19 January 2024 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <skedastically@proton.me>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F962C14F602 for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=proton.me
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LndJFN13fBpb for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D611C14F6B8 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jan 2024 00:00:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=proton.me; s=protonmail; t=1705651234; x=1705910434; bh=6r3Pt8sdpnsRVoeeR6th+ra2l+f+RczGEZ3QmkY8cMY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date: Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=JA0Nr/bJvFVlkBLdqk/c7CljBY5CHB6Y9pHFbNNNOQnM2uvx9fk+MRCf35rAwTebo DpezVYjJpRr5D3XBAs72DjmpyAAQP8Ln+NfkjJHG/K+u7/1kcBxR/7OojbU43ntLf4 hP5HYARNW4fqSqTryMjCrTXy/1kBtTV2OI4UaFPeZq8nqapfUv+CmRx8162tZ2jOIe vlfChmVS5fa3JLDUDKk0VI0CA6TWsogPV3o/8wJ/FgKAvCB+Yyp7IYPQk8W0LZ0NR2 kP5Lun3lFIBccEHcdTa27wYWJGedUHLe3ECvaKMr2V8/Tqg29UbPg3loCwGKTe0vkT /00jks/jyyWoA==
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:00:09 +0000
To: "calsify@ietf.org" <calsify@ietf.org>
From: skedastically <skedastically@proton.me>
Message-ID: <DSj0gtUNr0ZqIYLhu0Fhv-LtZX8eN7b5kexmybzn7SlMU_E0TV7L1_IxJYNB3QPctQXx6UAIkm7ORnbjYvhdSj9gbUasPHnEZxc9Oz8m0TI=@proton.me>
Feedback-ID: 64886223:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/2sa3xd69UZrqtbXlZ1RB9js2s8Q>
Subject: [calsify] jscontact - Inquiries about the "label" and "contexts" properties
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Calendaring and Scheduling Standards Simplification <calsify.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/calsify/>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:00:42 -0000

Hi,

Both the "contexts" and "label" properties seem to define attributes relating to the phone number/email address/online service/etc. In my perspective, they both work as a property-specific tag system, similar to how "keywords" are used per-contact.

Therefore, I would think it is more beneficial to combine them into one, with enumerated values of "work" and "private" being "special" values. This is similar to how the TYPE property parameter was implemented in VCard. Furthermore, I would think it would be better to name them as "tags" instead of contexts or label(s).

Given these thoughts, I would like to ask the following:

- Is "contexts" intended to be used as a keyword system similar to the above idea? If so, what is the extra use of a single "label", given that tags are already assigned? Furthermore, would it be better to rename the parameter to "tags" or a similarly generic term instead?
- If "contexts" and "label" are delineated for different use cases, then can "label" store multiple values instead of just one String? (i.e. call it "labels" and use the type signature of String[Boolean] or String[]).

Thank you very much for any feedback.

Regards,

skedastically