Re: [VCARDDAV] Questions, Concerns, and Errata concerning vcardrev-13

Rohit Khare <khare@alumni.caltech.edu> Wed, 03 November 2010 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <khare@alumni.caltech.edu>
X-Original-To: vcarddav@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vcarddav@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E5B28C0DD for <vcarddav@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9lckZEVVs0ax for <vcarddav@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.alumni.caltech.edu (posteaux1.caltech.edu [131.215.239.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF18C28C0D7 for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.19.14] (unknown [216.239.45.19]) by mail.alumni.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E6983F0B7E; Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 mail.alumni.caltech.edu 2E6983F0B7E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=alumni.caltech.edu; s=enforce; t=1288814494; bh=ecpQGoYry38m5Qu5+XQOqS3CeCY5Aviwh0XcT4Of3Ks=; h=Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=NnaapAj3pCXAQyRrBMAUVoEVm5isKIiJxmhvKT5wD5qaoPKiFn06+LERTe05BTbN3 BRlCeAG9ux0IS9pYZ1y3JEL633ciNM1XESXhCgtj6KigJ06WgpM2ek3XrK8vnV3eqz ZtaVoq0EQP3/UdrMXS+Xyh6WIKMxonyo+CihcsYo=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Rohit Khare <khare@alumni.caltech.edu>
In-Reply-To: <077B7435FEE2801DA05A68A4@caldav.corp.apple.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:01:32 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E1C198AA-E5CD-4610-9A1E-701AE42D980C@alumni.caltech.edu>
References: <2B2DCE4A-4AC8-4C21-88CA-597A8123C809@Khare.org> <077B7435FEE2801DA05A68A4@caldav.corp.apple.com>
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-MailScanner-Information-Alumni:
X-Alumni-MailScanner-ID: 2E6983F0B7E.A9481
X-MailScanner-Alumni: No Virii found
X-Spam-Status-Alumni: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-4.399, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60, DKIM_SIGNED 0.00, DKIM_VERIFIED -0.00)
X-MailScanner-From: khare@alumni.caltech.edu
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:12:59 -0700
Cc: vcarddav@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] Questions, Concerns, and Errata concerning vcardrev-13
X-BeenThere: vcarddav@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <vcarddav.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav>
List-Post: <mailto:vcarddav@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 20:04:07 -0000

[Three specific quotes from earlier in the thread pasted below] 

At the very least, I appreciate the explanation, so CALSCALE may have a place in the spec text.

The explicit pointer to the calendar specs might remind the reader that dates are discussed normatively over in that community. It would still bother me that RFC 5545 hasn’t defined more, either, but that places the blame more accurately :)

That said, I am personally skeptical that such a degree of calendar fidelity is essential for the task of managing address books. I would be swayed by a credible example in the spec text. Wikipedia, if better cited, would still bother me as not-quite-an-address-book; I have assumed the general problem of describing human beings is entirely out-of-scope for VCARDDAV.

— Rohit

On Oct 12, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:

> Now, is this a real problem? I really can't say whether users are clamoring for a fix. However, I believe we should take the time to fix it. The fact that we have not formally defined CALSCALEs beyond GREGORIAN is a side issue. Already, there has started to be more interest from various parties to work on extending iCalendar with non-GREGORIAN CALSCALE, so that work will filter down to vCard too. Perhaps we should tie the vCard value to the iCalendar registry for CALSCALE values so we stay in sync.


On Nov 1, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:

> I'm unable to find such a registry on IANA's website. We need one, if
> I'm reading RFC 5545 correctly.
> 
> In any case, RFC 5545 only defines the GREGORIAN value.

On Nov 1, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> Now, is this a real problem? I really can't say whether users are clamoring
>> for a fix.
> 
> As I've pointed out previously, the inability to correctly generate
> vCards with Julian dates has already been a problem on Wikipedia.