Re: vCard and CardDAV strawman Charter

Julian Reschke <> Fri, 25 May 2007 12:11 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HrYdI-0000qv-4b; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:11:00 -0400
Received: from discuss by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HrYdG-0000fi-39 for; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:10:58 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HrYdF-0000cP-J2 for; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:10:57 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HrYdE-0001w1-6M for; Fri, 25 May 2007 08:10:57 -0400
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 May 2007 12:10:54 -0000
Received: from (EHLO []) [] by (mp030) with SMTP; 25 May 2007 14:10:54 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/uXPVVBSHu1MdlY72zyPMNhJQ2O21gQ9m5+HQvvJ 6Xa+u1/MfmjSSf
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:10:40 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv: Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cyrus Daboo <>
Subject: Re: vCard and CardDAV strawman Charter
References: <AFD8F8BC1C0185492E28E4AE@446E7922C82D299DB29D899F> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Cc:, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Also, in CardDAV I used the MIME type text/vcard - but I note that does 
> is not the registered type. Instead 'text/directory; profile=vcard' is. 
> However, I am pretty sure I have seen text/vcard being used in email - 
> it may be we want to register that too as part of vcard-bis.

Interesting. Of course I do agree that whatever gets used should be 
registered. Do we have any evidence that 'text/directory; profile=vcard' 
doesn't work in practice?

> I also question the utility of text/directory these days. It seems that 
> the only thing that actually uses it is vCard. Does it still make sense 
> to have that as a separate document, or should it be rolled up into the 
> vCard-bis effort? At the very least it may be that 2425 needs some 
> updating as well and should be something we discuss at the BOF and 
> potentially include in the charter.

Probably true.

>>> - One thing did get removed from CardDAV in the last revision - the
>>> "synchronization" report feature. I removed this because a similar
>>> feature is also needed by CalDAV, and is arguably applicable to WebDAV
>>> as a whole. I was planning on writing that up as a separate spec (work
>>> under way). I would like to see such a specification also be dealt with
>>> by this group - I think it is in scope on the basis that it does touch
>>> on synchronization issues (and more specifically for deployment -
>>> performance).
>> Having that stand-alone sounds right, please do it on the former WebDAV
>> WG's mailing list...
> Whilst this is a "generic" WebDAV extension, both CalDAV and CardDAV 
> really need it, so I would like to see this be part of the work items 
> for the proposed working group if it gets going.

It's fine to have it as a work item, but it still may make sense to use 
the more generic mailing list for it (that's what it's for after all).

Best regards, Julian