make poco vcard compatible?

[Thomas Koch]

Hi,

since you're discussing PoCo and somebody suggested to submit it to IETF:
How about separating the data model from the protocol and making the data
model vcard compatible as is xcard to vcard?
That way, traditional Groupware systems, who work on a data model aligned with
vcard could easily serve a JSON representation to be used in widgets.

As I see it, poco would need to be extended in a backwards compatible way to
accept more "property parameters" and some additional parameters. There also
seems to be interest on the vcard site to add social data to vcard:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-social-networks-00

Regards,

Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro

[Joseph Smarr]

We spent a lot of time talking with the VCARDDAV working group while they were working on vCard 4, and while several useful improvements to vCard 4 were made that brought it in closer alignment with PoCo, they ultimately decided not to take a JSON version of vCard on as part of their charter. Nevertheless, the specs are very similar, and there's good/easy 1:1 conversion code in both directions (see e.g. http://www.plaxo.com/pdata/vcardTest), so there's not much difficulty in currently using PoCo like "the un-official JSON format for vCard". Note BTW that PoCo's JSON is intentionally much simpler and cleaner than the direct JSON translation of vCard's XML format would be, since they opted for more expressivity more mechanical 1:1 translation to their legacy serialization format, whereas PoCo was more concerned with "looking good/simple on the wire". Again, this is more a difference of style, since translating between the two formats is easy in practice.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Matt F. <mfra...@mitre.org> wrote:

+1

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/nuyP11nrxiQJ.

To post to this group, send email to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en.

[Joseph Smarr]

Just the usual concerns about formality vs. agility. The plan was to just get contributors to sign OWFa agreements for PoCo vs. a more formal and lengthy standards track. Adoption of PoCo hasn't been hindered in practice by lack of an endorsement from a major standards body (more just from entropy or people not liking standards).

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM, James M Snell <jas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, that all said and acknowledged... is there any reason at all the
IETF suggestion wouldn't work?

- James

[Thomas Koch]

Joseph Smarr:

> Just the usual concerns about formality vs. agility. The plan was to just
> get contributors to sign OWFa agreements for PoCo vs. a more formal and
> lengthy standards track. Adoption of PoCo hasn't been hindered in practice
> by lack of an endorsement from a major standards body (more just from
> entropy or people not liking standards).
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:17 PM, James M Snell <jas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, that all said and acknowledged... is there any reason at all the
> > IETF suggestion wouldn't work?

I actually don't care that much about an RFC number. More important for me
would be a commitment written in the PoCo spec to be and stay isomorph to
vCard and a defined proces to converse vCard to PoCo and inverse without _any_
information loss.

Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro