|
On 7/17/13 12:27 AM, Ben Campbell
wrote:
Yes, thanks. I've added the case changes since even though upper-case is RECOMMENDED in rfc6350, it is indeed information that is lost. Could you elaborate which optional parameters you mean? If you mean the GROUP parameter, this parameter is to be removed when converting back into vCard, so there is no change to the original group construct.I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcard-04 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2013-07-16 IETF LC End Date: 2013-07-18 IESG Telechat date: 2013-07-18 Note: This draft is on the IESG Telechat agenda on the same date as it completes IETF Last Call. Therefore, this review serves both purposes. Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. There are a few minor issues and editorial nits that should be considered prior to publication. Major issues: -- None Minor issues: -- Section 1, design considerations: You mention that the semantic results should survive round-tripping, but the order of fields might not. I gather there are other changes that might occur from the literal text, right? (e.g. Case changes, some optional parameter usage). If so, it might be worth clarifying that. I neither found nor recall any other examples where it would be necessary to add anything. I agree "removed" isn't the best word, I wasn't really happy with the alternatives though, maybe "unescape" will work out (not sure if that is a real word?). If not, then I'd go with your "render", although to me that always suggests it is actually displayed. I'm happy for more suggestions though:-- 3.1, 2nd paragraph: I assume the removal of escaping means that one renders the escaped text, not simply removes it, right? Is that as simple as removing the escape characters in vCards? I assume this doesn't apply to any content-specific escaping inside vCard fields, e.g. URI escaping, right? If so, it might be worth mentioning. OLD: When converting from vCard to jCard, lines MUST be unfolded first. Afterwards, vCard escaping MUST be removed. The only escaping that may be applied is any escaping mandated by JSON (e.g., for control characters). The reverse order applies when converting from jCard to vCard. First, JSON escaping MUST be removed. Afterwards, vCard escaping MUST be applied. Finally, long lines SHOULD be folded as described in [RFC6350]. NEW: When converting from vCard to jCard, lines MUST be unfolded first. Afterwards, vCard escaping MUST be unescaped. The only escaping that may be applied is any escaping mandated by JSON (e.g., for control characters) and any content-specific escaping inside vCard values, e.g. URI escaping. The reverse order applies when converting from jCard to vCard. First, JSON escaping MUST be unescaped. Afterwards, vCard escaping MUST be applied. Finally, long lines SHOULD be folded as described in [RFC6350]. I'd love to hear from the WG here, but given vCard 5.0 can at least in theory be completely different, I think the correct thing to do would be to restrict this jCard document to 4.x and when 5.x comes around create a revision of the document. Of course the text could be changed so that its "valid until revised by another document", in case the changes in 5.x are minor enough that no change in jCard is needed.-- 3.2.1.1: What happens for future versions of vCard? Do you simply use the new version number, or would we need a new version of this spec? I suspect the latter. If true, it might be worth mentioning that, or somewhere early in the draft mention that this spec is for vCard 4.0 only. In any case, there should be a text change that any 4.x revision is allowed. For example, I recently read a suggestion for signed vCards that might use a version "4.0s". The ISO specs don't provide a direct BNF for any of their constructs. Instead they show examples in the form:-- sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4: Is the included ABNF a quotation of that in the referenced RFCs, or is it new and authoritative? If the former, it would be helpful to mention that in the text. (I note you did say that about the ABNF in the appendix). Basic format: YYYYMMDD Example: 19850412 Extended format: YYYY-MM-DD Example: 1985-04-12 The ABNF in jCard mimics this format, so it is not new, but given it matches I guess we could say its authoritative. Unless someone tells me otherwise (I'm still a bit uncertain when something can be called authoritative), I'll change it by changing the hangText "ABNF Schema:" to "ABNF Schema (authoritative):" in both sections. There is no other vCard property that uses a utc-offset as a type, so this is just for the sake of an example. RFC6350 Section 6.5.1 has the details, it says utc-offset SHOULD NOT be used on a TZ property. The alternative would be to use an x-property for the example, i.e-- 3.4.11: If RFC6350 says that use of the timezone offset is NOT RECOMMENDED, can you elaborate on why it's included here? (I can guess it's because people may still use it in vCards since it was a "MUST NOT", but it would be good to say something to that effect in the text.) ["x-clock-offset", {}, "utc-offset", "-05:00"] Do you think we should use this instead? Doing this in the introduction since you reference Section 1, paragraph 1. It already appears in the abstract, should I expand it there instead/in addition?Nits/editorial comments: -- Section 1, paragraph 1: Please expand JSON on first mention. As the first mention uses "JSON-based", I've reworded these two paragraphs: OLD: As certain similarities exist between vCard and the iCalendar data format [RFC5545], there is also an effort to define a JSON-based data format for calendar information called jCal [I-D.ietf-jcardcal-jcal] that parallels the format defined in this specification. The purpose of this specification is to define "jCard", a JSON format for vCard data. One main advantage to using a JSON-based format as defined in [RFC4627] over the classic vCard format is easier processing for _javascript_ based widgets and libraries, especially in the scope of web-based applications. NEW: As certain similarities exist between vCard and the iCalendar data format [RFC5545], there is also an effort to define a JSON-based data format for calendar information called jCal [I-D.ietf-jcardcal-jcal] that parallels the format defined in this specification. The term JSON describes the _javascript_ Object Notation defined in [RFC4627]. The purpose of this specification is to define "jCard", a JSON format for vCard data. One main advantage to using a JSON-based format over the classic vCard format is easier processing for _javascript_ based widgets and libraries, especially in the scope of web-based applications. Yes, the duplicate is now removed. Sorry about that!-- Section 1, paragraph 3: This paragraph seems redundant to paragraph 1. OLD:-- 1, paragraph 7: " Preserve the semantics of the vCard data." Imperative form sentence is confusing in context, and inconsistent with surrounding text. Preserve the semantics of the vCard data. While a simple consumer can easily browse the data in jCard, a full understanding of vCard is still required in order to modify and/or fully comprehend the directory data. NEW: The vCard data semantics are to be preserved, allowing a simple consumer to easily browse the data in jCard. A full understanding of vCard is still required in order to modify and/or fully comprehend the directory data. The original intent was to make this a list of considerations, but as the first sentences are full I agree this makes it seem weird. How is this? I'm a little unsure about the "must not", but since this is just a consideration for the document and not an order for the consumer I think its ok with this casing:-- 1, paragraph 8: Sentence Fragment. OLD: Ability to handle many extensions to the underlying vCard specification without requiring an update to this document. NEW: Extensions to the underlying vCard specification must not lead to requiring an update to jCard. Done-- 3.2, Last Paragraph: "... for a parser check the data type..." Missing "to"? Yes, copy/paste fail from jCal. Fixed.-- 3.2.1.2, last paragraph before example: Should the "iCalendar" reference be "vCard" instead? My intention was to keep the registration template as general as possible, RFCTODO indeed references "this RFC", I've defined an entity for it in the source. Do you want me to replace it with "this document" instead? I was thinking if the registration template is maybe copied out of the document and gathered somewhere, it would make sense to reference the document by its rfc number.-- 3.2.1.3, Last Paragraph: RFCTODO? I gather in the IANA section, that may be a placeholder for "this RFC", but that doesn't seem to fit here. Fixed-- 3.3.2: "Example 1:" Other examples are not numbered. Same reason, they appear in a registration template. I'm happy to replace with "this document" in case I'm told the registration template is never extracted from the document without any processing.-- 5: More occurrences of RFCTODO Thank you for the review! |