Re: [VCARDDAV] updating vCard 3.0 to vCard 4.0

[Daisuke Miyakawa <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Interesting. I'd like to have some documentation describing relation between
vCard 3.0 and 4.0, while I don't know there's any draft for it.

As for the mapping from 3.0 to 4.0, however, I have some concerns.

vCard 3.0 just recommends UTF-8. It is not MUST. Actually I've seen some
device emitted vCard with Japanese local charset called Shift_JIS.
One-to-One mapping from Shift_JIS to UTF-8 is sometimes impossible, as far
as I rember.
There are some other examples I can find which makes the migration
difficult.

>From the actual usage, I personally want such documentation anyway.
I think we don't need to have a strict mapping but some guideline, though I
agree it won't be a formal "specification".
For example, now we have SORT-AS parameter instead of vCard 3.0's
SORT-STRING, strings for sort should be composed differently.

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:3.0
N:宮川;大輔;;;
SORT-STRING:みやかわ だいすけ
NOTE:My name
END:VCARD


This should be...

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:4.0
N;SORT-AS="みやかわ;だいすけ":宮川;大輔;;;
NOTE:My name
END:VCARD


Thanks,

2010/7/15 Javier Godoy <[e-mail]>

>
> ¿Will be there a WG draft about updating from vCard 3.0 to vCard 4.0?
>
> I'm concerned that, after the publication of vcardrev, systems supporting
> vCard 4.0 would have to interoperate with systems supporting vCard
> 3.0-only. .
>
> Besides, since RFC 2425 and RFC 2426 will be obsolete, the requirement of
> "supporting both vCard 3.0 and vCard 4.0" will imply references to the
> obsolete and current standards, on an equal footing. Instead, I would like
> to
> require "mapping from vCard 3.0 to vCard 4.0", and have such mapping
> reviewed
> by the same people who participated in the discussion about vcardrev.
>
> Interoperability with older systems may also require exporting vCard 4.0
> instances as vCard 3.0. Later, the downgraded instance might be converted
> back
> to vCard 4.0. I would like to provide a mechanism for preserving as much
> information as possible during this mapping.
>
> I think the community would benefit and feel more confident if some
> broadly-discussed guidelines are provided, instead of asking each
> implementor
> to reinvent the wheel.
>
> If this is not in the schedule, and if you think it might be usefeul, I
> would
> like to take this responsability.
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Javier
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VCARDDAV mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav
>



-- 
Daisuke Miyakawa (宮川大輔)
[e-mail]