Re: [Uri-review] Request for review of "ab:" URI scheme

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Graham,

--On April 26, 2011 3:12:24 PM +0100 Graham Klyne <[e-mail]> 
wrote:

> In particular, concerning point (3), I think that an "add to address
> book" functionality encoded within a URI would be a Bad Thing.  But
> allowing that operations like Add, Update and Delete might usefully be
> applied to such URIs
>
> Another point about which I worry is the potential mismatch between being
> able to use such URIs as part of the process of, say, adding an entry to
> an address book, and in a context that allows "any URI that can be
> considered to resolve to some sort of list".  (But this maybe a probhlem
> for the Sieve protocol, not the proposed URI scheme.)
>
> In summary, I find myself in the slightly uncomfortable position of
> liking the potential for what an addrbook: URI scheme might offer, but
> fearing that the immediate requirement coming from the Sieve protocol has
> too small a "contact area" with the URI to meaningfully shape the URI
> technical specification to be able to achieve those goals in later
> developments.

Personally I think the "add to address book" use here is not right. 
addrbook: by itself does not include any actual contact data - it is simply 
a reference to an address book. "Add to addressbook" is handled (today) by 
simply providing a link to a vcard resource or use of a Link header point 
to vcard.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo