Subject: [VCARDDAV] the (in)famous Extensions

From: "Javier Godoy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:00:38 -0300

In the last weeks we discussed, several times, about extensions (a.k.a "common
and useful extensions to vCard"). It turned up to be a sink, where every
suspicious proposal was thrown.

I understand the concerns about excluding extensions from the core spec, because
- the core will be an standard track RFC, and several extensions are not mature
enough as for the standard track.
- discussing every possible extension introduces too much delay in the process.
- some extensions are domain-specific, and they will complicate the core
document if they were merged there.

However, some extensions address general problems (as opposite to
vendor-specific issues), and if we don't specify these them, then several
vendors will do so, and we'll end up with different properties/attributes/values
for the same purpose, as it have occurred with vCard 3.0 [1]. I don't know who
wins, but it won't be interoperability [2].

I think it would be better if we collect these experimental and/or too-specific
extensions, and produce a condensed corpus.
Do you agree with this idea or do you prefer extensions appearing "when
required" (and probably, not in an orderly fashion)?

If you think this has to be done, I volunteer to start it (please speak either
in favor or against it.)

Best Regards

Javier

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav/current/msg00465.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav/current/msg00481.html

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