IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [VCARDDAV] wg concensus to publish?

Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> Fri, 01 October 2010 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <cyrus@daboo.name>
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 3329B3A6EF4 for <vcarddav@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.695
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 iP9p0h5SCnvu for <vcarddav@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [151.201.22.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8303A6F5D for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CB019961268; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at daboo.name
Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (chewy.mulberrymail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MYVz7MI07Fq6; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:18:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from caldav.corp.apple.com (unknown [17.101.32.44]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3C5A1996125D; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:18:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 10:18:43 -0400
From: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
To: jsmarr@stanfordalumni.org, Renato Iannella <renato@iannella.it>
Message-ID: <2F47EC110073022C5DC2C2F7@caldav.corp.apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikfk4SrRtSycE07wVhAaP9FTgWydSB_U8n75K4J@mail.gmail.com>
References: <77CB7F18F612E5E9A4FBC7ED@caldav.corp.apple.com> <4CA22DFA.4050301@viagenie.ca> <7AB380FB-64A8-4EF7-AD8C-36836CA3549E@iannella.it> <AANLkTikfk4SrRtSycE07wVhAaP9FTgWydSB_U8n75K4J@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a1 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; size="713"
Cc: CardDAV <vcarddav@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] wg concensus to publish?
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: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:18:20 -0000

Hi Joseph,

--On October 1, 2010 7:11:24 AM -0700 Joseph Smarr <jsmarr@gmail.com> wrote:

> To be clear, everyone is aware of vCard, so the fact that several groups
> chose not to reuse these current drafts might make you "take notice" that
> lots of people in this field find them unacceptable as is. :)
>

Then why invent something new, as opposed to coming to the IETF and asking 
for vCard to be revised? Is there something so fundamentally flawed about 
vCard that prevents that?

Note this is not a criticism of what has been done, I am trying to get a 
feel for why different contact formats have arisen with the goal of 
figuring out whether there is a way to bring things back together.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email