Hi,
Maarten Wullink wrote: > > Hi Mario, > > > > > 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. > > > i see no valid reason why jscontact cannot become a ST, a client/server can > support both in multiple ways, we just have to figure out which format is the > future preferred format. > I prefer jscontact over jcard any day. > JSContact was published last year as a standards track document. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9553.html Arnt
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
