Subject: [VCARDDAV] One question about the PHOTO property

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:54:03 +0200

Hi,

One question about the PHOTO property :

- can this property be used also for videos ? If yes, is "PHOTO' the
good name ?

Thanks for you answers.
_______________________________________________
VCARDDAV mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:39:00 -0400

Hi [email-masked],

--On July 10, 2008 9:54:03 AM +0200 [email-masked] wrote:

> - can this property be used also for videos ? If yes, is "PHOTO' the good
> name ?

Small photos are reasonable to include "by value" in a vCard (so that they 
can be used to "badge" address book entries) but I would find it hard to 
justify including a video "by value". Why not just allow videos to be 
referenced via the URL? Or perhaps we could define a VIDEO property that is 
required to be a URL (no actual video data). But I really think the URL is 
sufficient.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: "Darryl Champagne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:12:45 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Cyrus Daboo
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:39 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] One question about the PHOTO property
> 
> good

I don't think the "by value" vs. "by reference" is really the issue, PHOTO
allows either. Plus, a small animated GIF (etc.) like people use in many
forums seems reasonably likely compared to a static photo - but it's still a
pictorial representation of that person, yet it moves.  Is PHOTO really the
right name for it though?

I think the basic question is just if the term PHOTO is too limiting
compared to current use.  Some places use the term "avatar", "profile
picture", others "icon", and so on.  Other social networking sites allow for
songs to be associated with someone's profile (which technically could go
into the SOUND property, but there is no way to indicate that it isn't the
default use as the proper pronunciation of the name).

The property already supports these (at least, if they have a MIME content
type); just should the name be any different?

dgc

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:34:06 -0700

> default use as the proper pronunciation of the name).

I'm tempted to say that this is material fit for a vCard extension, not 
for the core spec.

Simon

---

From: "Darryl Champagne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:30:57 -0400

I'm not sure how to distinguish tempted from saying from actually saying in
this case...

Extensions are OK for some of the things listed, but it does not make any
sense for an extension to try to rename something that is part of the core.
That is a question for the core, and deserves a real answer. 

Two questions have been raised.  The first was if Videos could be included
in PHOTOs.  The answer to that would seem to be mostly no, as PHOTO refers
to "image/" media types.  However, since some of these media types do allow
simple animations (including cycling through photos), this is not an
absolute restriction.

The second question raised was if the existing name is still appropriate, as
compared with 1996, vCard 2.1.  It seems like viable options for responses
fall into the basic categories of (possibly negated):

+1 Keep the name PHOTO as is
+0 It seems the best currently available
-0 It could be better, but need a reasonable suggestion to change it
-1 No, I want it to be X.

With possible modifiers, like please add/subtract the following text.

Based on this I am currently a weak -0, which would drift to a +0 if there
are no supported suggestions.  It could be a +1 with minor text changes,
like specifically excluding or pushing videos elsewhere, but I am not
proposing any such changes.

Note that from a purely technical standpoint, the best real name for the
PHOTO property would actually be IMAGE, since it talks about the "image/"
prefix media types, allowing cartoons and so on, not just photographs.  

If people then want to have extensions for VIDEO (etc.) which refers to the
"video/" media types as extensions or whatever, fine.

dgc

> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:34 PM
> To: Darryl Champagne
> Cc: 'Cyrus Daboo'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:41:07 -0700

> simple animations (including cycling through photos), this is not an

The distinction is purely semantic. The PHOTO property has semantics 
defined the the core spec. It is "an image or photograph information 
that annotates some aspect of the object the vCard represents." User 
agents can reasonably expect that the image will be static, and 
therefore not implement video display or whatever else.

To add a video, a new property with new semantics is needed.

> proposing any such changes.

It appears obvious to me that the current text doesn't allow video data 
in the PHOTO property.

> prefix media types, allowing cartoons and so on, not just photographs.

At this point it would make technical sense to keep the name as is to 
not have to change existing implementations.

> "video/" media types as extensions or whatever, fine.

I think that's what should happen.

Let's not turn PHOTO into a MEDIA property which could contain anything 
and the user agent would determine what to do based on the media type.

Simon