Re: vCard and CardDAV strawman Charter

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

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