Hi,
following the brief discussion we had during our last meeting on this
topic, I'd like to highlight a few points I omitted for time reasons:
1) If I'm not mistaken, we agreed that jCard had some limitations and
disadvantages. We were so aware of this that two proposals were put
forward to replace jCard with a more efficient format. However, at last
meeting, I was very surprised when Jim, speaking as participant, said
that JSContact couldn't be made ST because jCard exists and performs the
same function.I assumed that point had been overcome and that most of
WG's concerns were about JSContact's suitability for RDAP. After the
draft had made experimental, in response to the provided feedback,
Robert and I published two drafts on CalExt to make JSContact more
usable in contexts other than calendaring and addressbook applications,
and I believed the WG members appreciated this effort and recognized
that the concerns that led to the change to Experimental status had been
addressed.
2) Deprecating one feature and replacing it with another always implies
a transition period during which both features are provided by the
server and can be requested by the client. Therefore, I didn't
understand the argument that the draft couldn't be made ST because jCard
is already there. Even if the draft remained experimental, JSContact and
jCard would coexist for a more or less long time. The only difference in
making jscontact-rdap ST is that the WG would agree that JSContact is a
more efficient representation of jCard and could be a technically viable
alternative to jCard.
3) As suggested by Jasdip on the mailing list, I also think that using
JSContact in RDAP should be viewed first and foremost as an extension
like any other. While the draft also includes guidance for a transition
process between jCard and JSContact, it doesn't explicitly state that
jCard is deprecated neither it defines the duration of the transition
process. Like any other extension, it always depend on how many servers
will implement and how many clients will require this extension.
That said, and considering that most of WG members (3 out of 4 including
Jim) who spoke on the mic at last meeting supported reconsidering the
draft's status, I expect that the Chairs will post a call to verify the
WG consensus on turning the draft back to ST.
Best,
Mario
--
Dott. Mario Loffredo
Senior Technologist
Technological Unit “Digital Innovation”
Institute of Informatics and Telematics (IIT)
National Research Council (CNR)
Address: Via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 PISA, Italy
Phone: +39.0503153497
Web:http://www.iit.cnr.it/mario.loffredo
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
