Re: [VCARDDAV] Miscellaneous comments

Hi,

2010/7/19 Javier Godoy <rjgodoy@fich.unl.edu.ar>
>
> 2. NAME. "The NAME property is used to convey the display name of the
>>> entity to which the directory information pertains"
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the display name be choosen by the implementation? There is
>>> already a mandatory FN property from which the display name could be
>>> derived.
>>>
>>> I remember this issue was discussed before, but I cannot find the
>>> rationale
>>> for not removing the NAME property.
>>>
>>
>> We inherited NAME from vCard 3.0
>>
>
> NAME is inherited from RFC 2425, thus it should have been intended as a
> minimal profile-independent representation of the display name (not only for
> vCard but also for other "directory profiles" that never existed).
>
>
>  I, for one, have no clue how it could be useful.
>>
>> Does anyone know how it is being used currently?
>>
>
>  and I don't think its removal has ever been discussed.
>>
>
> I agree it seems we never discussed it, though it was proposed
> http://www.vcarddav.org/issues.xhtml#176
> "The NAME (RFC2425) property is redundant with FN (RFC2426)"
> Closed without action on 2008-06-09
>
> And yes, I said "+1" to closing it, but I cannot remember why... now I
> think we should do something about it.
>

+1 to do something. I prefer removing it, but there's no strong preference.

I think one problem is that the name is too generic. If NAME is "a minimal
profile-independent representation of the display name", the name should not
be
NAME but SHORT-NAME, SN, or something more appropriate. We don't need to
inherit that name from vCard 3.0, but its intention.

Thanks,

>
> Best Regards
>
> Javier
>
> _______________________________________________
> VCARDDAV mailing list
> VCARDDAV@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav
>

-- 
Daisuke Miyakawa (宮川大輔)
d.miyakawa@gmail.com