Re: FW: vCARD v.2.1 definition extension request from MOPA

["Frank Dawson" <fdawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul:

Why is a PCS property appropriate for a telephone number in the vCard? Will
the user require a different device to call a PCS telephone number (ie,
need a telex device to call a telex number)? I didn't think so. This is one
reason that I might want to add a specific property parameter for PCS.
Isn't it just a cellular technology? Do we need to differentiate all the
other types of cellular technologies? We went through this once before with
a request from Nokia for annotating all the world wide cellular standards.
This makes no sense. I don't include this info on my business card in front
of my cellular number.

When I get my PCS PrimeCo service, will I put a prefix on my business card
for this? I don't think so. 

There is alot of info that can be stored in a custom or
application-specific directory that will not need to be conveyed to the UA
for presentation to the end user.

I am not in support of adding this property parameter to the vCard
specification.

The CLASSification property is similar to the CATEGORIES property. They are
both in the vCalendar specification and also have presence in current PIM
and personal address book products. This would seem to support copying
these properties from the vCalendar specification to the vCard document.

I had some discussion with Roland Alden about this. We had a split
decision. Roland pointed out that why there was accepted practice for
adding these properties, their use was specific to an instance of a
product. How will this provide for interoperability, if what I call PRIVATE
you call PUBLIC? Or vice a versa. Likewise, the CATEGORIES values may be
appropriate for me but not useful to a recipient. Do you need to know that
I categorize your entry in with "INDUSTRY GROUPS"? Don't think so. However,
this being said I personally can see why I might want these properties in
the vCard draft. For example, if we want the PDA synchronization market
place to use vCard as the canonical form, won't they need these properties
to synchronize entries in my PDA-based PIM with the analog application on
my desktop? Net: I would support adding the CLASS and CATEGORIES
properties.

What do others on this list think. Sakai-san is looking for closure on this
issue!

Cheers.

- - Frank

----------
> From: Paul E. Hoffman <phoffman@xxxxxxx>
> To: Takeshi Sakai <tsakai@xxxxxxx>; fdawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: imc-vcard@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: FW: vCARD v.2.1 definition extension request from MOPA
> Date: Sunday, March 30, 1997 7:09 PM
> 
> At 6:59 AM -0800 3/27/97, Takeshi Sakai wrote:
> >- Add CLASS property in vCARD
> 
> This seems appropriate to me. I suggest that it be added in the
Explanatory
> Properties section.
> 
> >2. Addition of property parameter PCS to TEL property
> 
> This also seems appropriate to me. We will probably have to add a few
more
> of these types over time, but getting as many relevant types in now is a
> Good Thing.
> 
> --Paul E. Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium
> 
>