Re: [VCARDDAV] vcardrev-12 sections 5.1, 5.5

"Javier Godoy" <> Tue, 13 July 2010 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A235E3A69FF for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.624
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.392, BAYES_40=-0.185, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_54=0.6, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7i8qfhBRrlJG for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1F43A69C3 for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Javier2 ([]) (authenticated user by (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128 bits)); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:05:21 -0300
Message-ID: <8DEF99B01E764682876D068231CC5AC3@Javier2>
From: Javier Godoy <>
To: Simon Perreault <>
References: <><><83DB7A17C72D4194B2B78E6B3B213491@Javier2> <>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:05:02 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] vcardrev-12 sections 5.1, 5.5
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:05:08 -0000

On 2010-07-13 10:26, Simon Perreault wrote:

> On 2010-07-13 04:39, Javier Godoy wrote:
>> Note also that the ABNF for BIRTH-param doesn't include a pid-param
>> alternative, thus rendering the example illegal even if 5.5 is redefined..
> AARGH! You're very right. We need a new example that uses a different
> property.
> How about this one? I tried to illustrate every possible case to make
> things really clear. Does it help?

Yes, it answers my question.

About the proposed examples, the explanation aftear each one helps a lot for 
understanding why they are illegal while other similar examples are legal.

The "legal but questionable" part is also useful, though I have another 

>     TITLE;LANGUAGE=fr;PID=1:Patron
>     TITLE;LANGUAGE=en;PID=2:Boss
> (Should probably have the same PID value.)
>     TITLE;LANGUAGE=fr:Patron
>     TITLE:Boss
>     (Second line should probably have LANGUAGE=en.)

Do we want to emphasize the difference between



     TITLE;LANGUAGE=en:Chief vCard Evangelist

In the first example there is a single logical property, in the second one
there are two logical properties.
I think it is likely they will be treated differently (e.g. displaying either
"Boss" or "Patron" according to the user preferences, and displaying both
"Chief vCard Evangelist" and "Patron" because they are different values).

While the specification doesn't mandate what is to be done in each case, it
should allow the difference to be realized, so that implementation-defined
actions can be performed.

Maybe the PID parameter SHOULD be used if values in different languages are 
given.for a property with cardinality (0,n) or (1,n), in order to disambiguate 
whether they are logically related or not.

Then the following two examples would be legal:

TITLE;PID=2;LANGUAGE=en:Chief vCard Evangelist

And the following examples would be legal but questionable

(should probably use the same PID value.)

TITLE;LANGUAGE=en:Chief vCard Evangelist
(should probably use different PID values.)

(should probably use the same PID value, and second line should probably have

Best Regards