Re: [VCARDDAV] JSON representation

"Raghurama Bhat (ragbhat)" <ragbhat@cisco.com> Mon, 11 June 2012 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ragbhat@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A399B21F857F for <vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SOeSdGoh8i2g for <vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0893421F856D for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ragbhat@cisco.com; l=1893; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1339439962; x=1340649562; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=Nd8vALZpDBM/Kjyc1mBsOaQfgUYlqcsQnHa1B61OOPo=; b=ibsvj+NLi1TFkAfBFSQ2dN8mlUWhPHJYVekVQ5xa8Ar5HsMtIHPKaN+f bV1ULqJuvu4dl5PB1bRPgRJadxTBmPL1ldGHEtoDdFLeArxpvrUxXorEI qd0TWkH4dPL2BrUk0NS0czJPH4E9bVTjfEk60mR4eBIfKLnDM53Ow539r w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAPA51k+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABFtRiBB4IYAQEBAwESAR0KPwUHBAIBCBEEAQEBCgYYBgFOCAEBBAESCBqHZASYbZ9hiySFCWADiECac4FmgwA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,751,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="45930725"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2012 18:39:21 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5BIdKKb013194; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:39:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21d.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.140]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:39:20 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:39:19 -0700
Message-ID: <93E73285DA3584449E2CD5E9414E16C303855FB9@xmb-sjc-21d.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CBFB96A7.2C8CD%jhildebr@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [VCARDDAV] JSON representation
Thread-Index: Ac1IAQbOyvPZLfOFpkimrLMHhaDztAAADsVg
References: <4FD639EC.9080502@viagenie.ca> <CBFB96A7.2C8CD%jhildebr@cisco.com>
From: "Raghurama Bhat (ragbhat)" <ragbhat@cisco.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2012 18:39:20.0735 (UTC) FILETIME=[83D1E2F0:01CD4801]
Cc: vcarddav@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] JSON representation
X-BeenThere: vcarddav@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <vcarddav.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:39:22 -0000

In this case, vCard relies on Order but xCard does not.  (I am talking
about Gender value and parameter, not properties in general)
Personally, I think the self-describing nature of xCard is better for
JSON mapping to align with. I don't  see what the interop issue is. Full
conversion can be supported in both directions without any loss of
information.

Thanks,

--Raghu

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:36 AM
To: Simon Perreault
Cc: Raghurama Bhat (ragbhat); vcarddav@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] JSON representation

I don't care about the order of properties.  The streaming use cases of
CardDAV don't really apply, except, perhaps, for a collection of vCards.


On 6/11/12 12:33 PM, "Simon Perreault" <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
wrote:

> On 2012-06-11 14:18, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> I'm ok with relying on order in the places where vCard relies on 
>> order.  I detest it as a protocol design decision, but it makes the 
>> interop much easier, such that we don't have to come up with field 
>> names where none exist.
> 
> The bigger issue IMHO is: should we insist that JSON preserve the 
> order of properties? If we don't care about ordering, we may use a 
> dictionary as the root data structure, as proposed in the draft. 
> Otherwise, something more complex would be needed.
> 
> RFC6350 doesn't say anything about order, except that VERSION must 
> come first. Any well-behaved vCard consumer needs to be able to handle

> any ordering. So if round-tripping between vCard and JSON wouldn't 
> preserve order, we would still have the same vCard as far as RFC6350
is concerned.
> 
> As a aside, an RFC6350bis should say that ordering of properties and 
> parameters is not to be relied on for any purpose.
> 
> Simon

--
Joe Hildebrand