Re: [VCARDDAV] RFC 6715

Michael Angstadt <mike.angstadt@gmail.com> Fri, 07 September 2012 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mike.angstadt@gmail.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 31B9521F86F9 for <vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.405
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.473, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Jj5YWvJ5jRN for <vcarddav@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77A8F21F86D1 for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so5327507obb.31 for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=RxosabCSyQq1mCcJnwmcAP4BCf2oYwL/Ynp3JdQMHFU=; b=ZdZ14rhXCDHv4Eed4B5T98wciM5kJTQwoNKHU9RPM9sF7G4ybX2k1ThDO3LUrb+D5k ItSBCImQhZOfaDrcbGDLFSw0za29erhYs5DfPc+bhAZ1SzH6nHezKk1Inw45RqOXql8r X5tYgOes22y/aBFL5BTNsAYdukXtZxF5JMHNc1wMN4DAfJTfS9OC6aS4MdznvAWM1STK NF4P0dns2IjG9w0pXyrG0JSV7tuFJDkWaSsjGETb93RlQT1bxtP0ah9XsF53mv0M/sHs cuT7V4sBVqpcua+vPomaXRxmrXQ+6viY4+1SaFQJwY7u42x1PCqufBqUephiQ8D36LGZ WvaQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.207.6 with SMTP id ls6mr6705288obc.36.1347033435862; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.172.177 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <504A1202.8080908@viagenie.ca>
References: <CAJNb_g0QsaWYV=sty=-mFLTOpr7q+JMqFjKEDU3rD3WTdamNzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVCPQzSVKMR6r-c71gmviZdtkXJdJrv2Uhb5V1wBSkinkg@mail.gmail.com> <504A1202.8080908@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:57:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJNb_g1+Zw7WtWvR-QqVUp8VHOaZ0QjAoh1dLig6+3oqi9ZCuw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Angstadt <mike.angstadt@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f646e2b71f74a04c91ea949"
Cc: vcarddav@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] RFC 6715
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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:57:17 -0000

>
> I don't understand. In vCard, property order is irrelevant. PREF does not
> influence property order. I would advise against publishing this in an
> errata.


Yes, you're right, the PREF parameter doesn't (directly anyway) have
anything to do with property order.  I just used it as a model for what I
thought should be done if some properties have INDEX parameters and others
do not. :)

For example, the ordering of the following properties is very clear, since
they all have INDEX parameters:

INTEREST;INDEX=3:art
INTEREST;INDEX=2:baseball
INTEREST;INDEX=4:music
INTEREST;INDEX=1:hockey

However, if some properties have INDEX parameters and others don't, the
spec doesn't spell how how they should be ordered (unless I missed
something).

INTEREST:art
INTEREST;INDEX=2:baseball
INTEREST:music
INTEREST;INDEX=1:hockey

Thanks,
-Mike


On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Simon Perreault <
simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:

> Le 2012-09-06 22:24, Barry Leiba a écrit :
>
>  Also, the specs do not state how a list of properties should be sorted if
>>> some of them have INDEX parameters and others do not.  I would think that
>>> they should follow the same rules as the PREF parameter, which is:
>>> properties WITHOUT the parameter are pushed to the end of the sorted
>>> list.
>>> For example, the properties below are presented in sorted order:
>>>
>>> INTEREST;INDEX=1:hockey
>>> INTEREST;INDEX=2:baseball
>>> INTEREST:music
>>>
>>
>> This is also correct
>>
>
> I don't understand. In vCard, property order is irrelevant. PREF does not
> influence property order. I would advise against publishing this in an
> errata.
>
> Simon
> --
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.**ca<http://postellation.viagenie.ca>
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> ______________________________**_________________
> VCARDDAV mailing list
> VCARDDAV@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/vcarddav<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>
>