Subject: Re: [scim] Proposal to resolve as "wontfix": #19: Incorporate the vCard model into the schema

From: Bjorn Aannestad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:44:11 -0600

On 11/24/2012 10:21, Anthony Nadalin wrote:
> So the way this question is proposed this does not close the question of schema or representation, it just says that we won't adopt the vCard proposal but leave us open to changing existing schema and representation as I'm not really happy with existing proposal, as I think it can be far simpler with better extensibility.
>

Yes, that is correct.   Closing #19 does not close other questions of 
schema, representation, or extensibility.   It is limited to the 
question of adopting vCard.   We wanted to get the vCard question 
answered so that we can proceed with the other tickets that would be 
affected by a vCard decision.

-Bjorn

--
  __________________________________________________________
Bjorn Aannestad | Dir, Product Management | UnboundID Corp
mailto:[email-masked] | 512-769-6461

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:54:53 +0100

On 12/12/2012 10:44 PM, Bjorn Aannestad wrote:
>> So the way this question is proposed this does not close the question
>> of schema or representation, it just says that we won't adopt the
>> vCard proposal but leave us open to changing existing schema and
>> representation as I'm not really happy with existing proposal, as I
>> think it can be far simpler with better extensibility.
>>
>
This is starting to feel like consensus to me - people who want to state
another opinion should do so right now.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:53:23 +0100

On 11/28/12 6:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> However, I reiterate that it's really important for this WG to "get it
> right" with regard to the extensibility model, and secondarily with
> regard to registration of extensions.

+1 on this point, AND there should be some test of that model under the
old "0, 1, many" adage.

Eliot