Subject: [Jcardcal] Editorial and "jCard component" -> "jCard object"

From: Bert Greevenbosch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 08:33:05 +0000

Hi all,

To address the following comment from Barry:

<QUOTE>
"In [RFC6350], vCard objects are comprised of ..." -- The whole comprises the
parts; this should be "In [RFC6350], vCard objects comprise ...".
Why "jCard component"? The word "component" makes me wonder what it's a
component *of*, when it seems to refer to a high-level thing. And, in fact,
the ABNF in Appendix A uses "jcardobject" as the overall definition, so why
aren't you calling it a "jCard object"?
</QUOTE>

I propose to adopt Barry's suggested "In [RFC6350], vCard objects comprise ...".

Also, I propose to indeed change "jCard component" to "jCard object". That would require a search & replace throughout the document.

Do folks agree?

Best regards,
Bert

---

From: Michael Angstadt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:12:32 -0400

To me, "jCard object" is clearer.  Perhaps "jCard component" was originally
chosen due to jCard's relationship to jCal.  jCal allows for an iCal object
to have multiple components (e.g. VEVENT, VTODO, etc), but jCard consists
of just a single component.  Or maybe it was chosen to avoid the potential
of confusing it with a JSON object (which a jCard entity is not).
 However, the term "jcardobject" is used in the ABNF, so using "jCard
object" would bring more consistency to the spec.

Thanks,
Mike

On Friday, August 23, 2013, Bert Greevenbosch wrote:

> Also, I propose to indeed change "jCard component" to "jCard object". That
> would require a search & replace throughout the document.
>
> Do folks agree?
>
> Best regards,
> Bert
> _______________________________________________
> jcardcal mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jcardcal
>