Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] Last call comments on vcardrev-11

From: Markus Lorenz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:33:48 +0200

Am 31.05.2010 19:38, schrieb Cyrus Daboo:
> * Section 5.6: The restriction on "work" and "home" usage related to
> presence and value of "KIND" seems a little odd. What is more, it does
> not use RFC2119 key words so it is not clear if this is a "real"
> requirement or not. This needs to be better defined, or the restriction
> should be removed.

I think the restriction should be removed. Right now I can't imagine a
situation where something other than an "individual" could have a
meaningful property typed "home" or "work". But then you could add
restrictions for all the type-param-related values as well, because
"parent", "child", etc. also make sense only for individuals.

> * Section 6.1.5: "group" should not be restricted to a group of
> "people". For example, I might want a group for all the locations in a
> particular building.

The MEMBER property already allows referring to any kind of URI, neither
only people nor only vCards. Hence you can already add members to a
"group" which are not people and thus the restriction to "people"
doesn't make sense.

Another thing could be to reduce the restrictions of the MEMBER
property. If you were allowed to have members for the KIND "thing" you
could create a vCard for the particular building, describe it as a
"thing" KIND, and associate other vCards (e.g. vCards for servers
describing their location) with it by using the MEMBER property.

Reducing the restriction of the MEMBER property would give you the
ability to build a large tree structure of associated things. This will
not be possible if only the "group" KIND is allowed to have MEMBER
properties. Then only the leaves of such a structure can be a "thing"
and all nodes must be "group".