Re: [VCARDDAV] KIND in draft 15

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kevin,

--On December 21, 2010 1:12:44 PM -0800 Kevin Marks <[e-mail]> 
wrote:

> Looking at the CARDDAV draft, I see a similar distinction made between
> addresses and collections that appear as URLs - did you later change
> this, Cyrus?

I am not quite sure what you are referring to here. In CardDAV we followed 
the model we have in CalDAV. There can be any number of "regular 
collections" in a user's address book home, and any number of "address book 
collections". "Address book collections" may appear inside of regular 
collections at any depth, but "address book collections" must not appear 
inside of other "address book collections" at any depth.

That later requirement basically ensures no nested address books (or 
calendars in the CalDAV case). When designing CalDAV we felt this was a 
constraint we needed to keep the protocol simple. There are clearly 
possible uses for nested collections, but the complexity of interactions 
the client might need were more than we wanted to foist on adopters of the 
protocol.

As things have turned out, the Apple clients at least currently only bother 
to look at depth:1 in the calendar or address book home collections - that 
also simplifies the client/server interaction as only a single PROPFIND 
Depth:1 is needed to discover the special collections. The need for even 
regular collection nesting just does not seem to be there. This is probably 
reasonable for calendars and address books as users are not likely to have 
large num=bers of those (as opposed to say email where users often create 
nested mailboxes/collections for organizational reasons).

-- 
Cyrus Daboo