Subject: draft-jennings-impp-vcard-07

From: "Brian Suda" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:00:16 -0500

I do have a few concerns about the DRAFT recommendation and some
suggestions on fixes.

The example in the document has the following:
IMPP;TYPE=personal,pref:im:[email-masked]

The use of the : (Colon) as a separator should only be used between
the property and the value. Older applications that currently parse
vCards are probably "splitting" on the first : (colon) and in this
instance would extract a value of "im:[email-masked]" when in fact
this is not the case. Older vCard parsers would have to be updated to
prevent breaking. This could be avoided by simply using only one :
(colon) to separate the property from the value and the example be
changed to something like:

IMPP;TYPE=personal,pref;PP=im:[email-masked]

What this also allows is the ability to make PP extensible. At the
moment this is an enumerated list of values. This could be changed to
an enumerated list plus, "iana-token / x-name;"

Overall, we have been marking-up Instant Messaging values in the URL
and simply using the proper protocol to identify the type of IM
client.

URL:aim://[email-masked]
URL:jabber://[email-masked]

Adding IMPP would certainly be helpful, but not at the expense of
hemming us into a fixed list of possible protocols and the use of the
colon to do "double duty".

Those are my concerns and suggestions for fixes. I couldn't seem to
find any archives on the site of the mailing list, so maybe these
issues have been brought-up and already dismissed or taken into
consideration.

Thanks and good luck,
Brian Suda

-- 
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:26:45 +0200

Brian,

first of all thanks for the feedback.

> an enumerated list plus, "iana-token / x-name;"

You say a parser that splits at the first colon would *incorrectly* 
extract a value of "im:[email-masked]". Well, that *is* the IMPP URI, 
so what exactly is the problem? (Note that the "im" URI scheme is 
defined <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3860#page-10>).

 > ...

Best regards, Julian