Re: [VCARDDAV] Signed vCards

[Evert Pot <[e-mail]>]

> SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE="homepage":http://www.datapacrat.com/
> SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE="blog":http://blog.datapacrat.com/
> SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE="profile":http://blog.datapacrat.com/about/
> SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE="twitter,blog,im";VALUE=text:@DataPacRat
> SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE="facebook,profile,blog,im";PREF=1;VALUE=text:DataPacRat
> SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE="facebook,profile,blog,im";PREF=2:http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=650281140

This is a bit off-topic, but I want to point your attention to this:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6350&eid=3100

I don't know wether or not a recommendation has come from that errata, but my gut tells me that this:

SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE="twitter","blog","im";VALUE=text:@DataPacRat

Should be the correct syntax.

Alternatively, use the following unambiguous formats:

SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE=twitter,blog,im;VALUE=text:@DataPacRat
SOCIALMEDIA;TYPE="twitter";TYPE="blog";TYPE="im";VALUE=text:@DataPacRat


Aside from that, what I am personally curious about, is wether the intention of this spec is to provide an initial registry of values such as 'twitter' and 'facebook', or wether the intention is to leave it completely open.

In the former case, I wonder if it is proper to give certain companies an advantage in being added to that registry, whereas lesser known websites/businesses are put at a disadvantage. It's my belief that specific brands have to place in the vcard specification, but I realize that this is more an argument towards academic purity.

If the intention is to not include specific trademarks, but rather make this a free-form field. I'd want to point out that we already have a much better registry for this, namely: uri's.

Evert