[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: vCard XML DTD
Renato and others,
----- Original Message -----
Citando Renato Iannella <renato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 1:39 AM
> On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 05:17 PM, krauss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > IETF divide responsabilities with the W3C,
> > ... I think W3C want translate vCard ...
> > ... They want vCard in a RDF framework,
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf
> As the author of the above document, I should point out
> that the RDF/vcard binding is a "W3C Note" and not a
> formal "W3C Recommendation".
Ok, precision is a good point "to evolute" this
Do you think that W3C can publish other "W3C Note" with
The "TR/vcard-rdf W3C Note" express a W3C position regarding
the XML-vCard subject, or we have space to a XSD?
Do you think that they has, between RDF and XSD "formalims",
some kind of the conflict? (in then context of vCard def.)
(xsd:Tag is more complex or dirty than Tag;
if you have XSD you don't need a RDF seq/li and alt/li
Do you think that XML-vCard (as a RDF or XSD) is a IETF
or a W3C responsibility?
(to produce a standard/Recommendation)
> > Now, in 2002 days, we must looking for XSD...
> > draft-dawson-vcard-xml-dtd-02.txt
> > like all DTD definitions can evolute to a XSD, like
> > http://www.dlnet.vt.edu/Resources/dlnetSysFiles/vCardv1p0.xsd
> > but it is not a standard... the standard are only the
> > semantic controled by RFC-2426.
> I would agree with this. I am often asked for the "formal"
> XML Schema for vCard.
Yes, we need, to really work with XML-vCards, a "approved XSD"
for vCard... where it is?? With what we can start?
> One of the key requirements is for
> a "normative" XML Namespace URI for vCard elements.
Do you think that the name spaces "induzed by"
dawson-vcard-xml (name, prefix, etc.) and by w3c-vcard-rdf
(N, FN, etc.) have conflict?
> I think there are two options forward.
> 1 - Re-start the IETF Internet-Draft process and, this
> time, follow it through to the end.
!!?? You can do this?? I am a little ant...
> 2 - Create and XML Schema that this groups feels covers the
> semantics of RFC2426 (and I have 30 examples of such schemas
> from my students from a Uni course I teach!!) and have it
> published on the IMC web site.
(poor pupils.. ;-) can I see the works, you have a URL?)
(ietf-vcard-xml in www.imc.org is died?)
(ietf-vcard@xxxxxxx is alive?)
(we can consolidate the mail-lists in a ietf place?)
I think that we need first expose de conflicts to next
find consensus (about then) and next do new work (new XSD,
new semantic remarks, etc.).
> The key difference is that 1) will take longer than 2).
Yes... but it never is late for starting... 1 and 2!
I think a little group can start with 2 then go to 1.
Much people will be contented with point your XML
or refs. to 2.
I think RFC-2426 not "very fineshed" one... In Brasil, f.ex.,
the name tags, N and FN for the name property, not sound
well: we don't use "Family, First-name" lists usualy, and
databases have only "First-name middle Family" monolitic
format, and this format have not the semantic of FN...
N and FN can not "well-used" into the standard vCard in
Brasil. The major "name databases" (hospitals, government,
private big orgs) are today in "monolitic" format in Brasil.
We also have a lot of composite names (f.e. "Fernando Henrique",
the president's first name) and RFC-2426 not very clear for
PS: sorry my english...
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/