[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0054 vcard email definition is inconsistent

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Sep 21 18:02:45 UTC 2004


In article <B9C0A555-089E-11D9-950C-000A958F753E at ceruleanstudios.com>,
 Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com> wrote:

> Now, stpeter suggested translating rdf into xdata.  That's really cool 
> in some ways -- it certainly means an ease of implementation on the 
> client, without having to define code for extra fields -- but it also 
> has limitations, such as not necessarily being able to populate 
> submissions or handle results in an automated way.
> 
> My personal preference, admittedly, is not for xdata; as much as xdata 
> saves the time on implementation, I want to be able to parse the 
> 'result' code into something useful, or to send the information in 
> question to the server from an automated system.  Maybe, for instance, 
> I have something on MacOS X which pulls the 'this is me' card from my 
> system address book, and uploads the data in that when I register an 
> account.  Or conversely, maybe I have an option which sucks someone's 
> contact information /into/ my address book, out of their Jabber/XMPP 
> user info.  That'd be harder to do with xdata.

Well, *if* we have standardized field names (via JEP-0068) for 
translating well-known FOAF properties (for instance) into x:data, then 
it seems we'd be able to pretty easily write consistent XSLT transforms 
from x:data to FOAF and back again. While I agree that being able to use 
any old RDF would be great, it seems to me that we'd want to recommend 
only those bits which are somewhat standardized in things like the FOAF 
spec.

Peter




More information about the Standards mailing list