Re: [VCARDDAV] draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-10 Possible Errata/Questions

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

On 2010-04-06 09:43, Florian Zeitz wrote:
>>> If it was on purpose it could also be rewritten as
>>> "text-list = *(*"," *TEXT-LIST-CHAR)"
>>> admittedly this is not beautiful, but would make it clearer that empty
>>> list entries are allowed and might avoid misinterpretation.
>>
>> I disagree. I think it would be much more confusing because then the
>> production *TEXT-LIST-CHAR would no longer represent a single text value.
>>
> Why would *TEXT-LIST-CHAR not represent a single text value any more?

Because you could sprinkle empty *"," in-between...

> I think my basic concern about this is that if you're not using
> CLIENTPIDMAP the synchronization described in Section 7 doesn't work
> (AFAICT).

They're just examples. Most of the mechanisms are left up to the 
synchronization engine.

> I suspect that regardless of whether Section 7 is to be split in a
> separate RFC, some text will be needed to make everything work together.

Please send some! ;)

Thanks,
Simon
-- 
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server        --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
vCard 4.0               --> http://www.vcarddav.org