[Bug 26866] add support for requesting handles for a vCard field or URI

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26866

Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Status Whiteboard|review-, not suitable as    |review+ as draft, minor
                   |draft yet                   |changes

--- Comment #47 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-09-06 04:11:29 PDT ---
This now looks good as a draft. There are some minor typos etc. that I'd like
fixed before the next spec release if possible, but they don't block a merge.

Minor style point for the future: I prefer the introductory <tp:docstring> to
appear at the beginning of the XML (I know we're inconsistent about that usage,
but I prefer to at least have it this way in new interfaces).

It would be good if you could expand on the introductory docstrings a bit, too.

> This interface deals with different forms of addresses that conform to contacts.

Conform doesn't mean that. Refer to contacts? Can be used to identify contacts?

> cannot me satisfied

cannot be satisfied (appears at least twice, please grep)

(In reply to comment #46)
> > I think it'd be worth moving TargetURI, TargetURIScheme,
> > TargetVCardField and TargetVCardAddress to a new Chan.I.Addressing which can be
> > merged as a draft (we can consider flattening them into Channel in Telepathy
> > 1.0), and moving the Protocol stuff to a Protocol.I.Addressing (ditto).
> 
> I guess they could be separate interfaces. My concern is that CMs need to be
> consistent about implementing Chan.I.Addressing for every channel that has a
> target contact, or it will get confusing (for example, the iface would appear
> in channels requested through TargetURI, but not when through TargetID).

I think implementing the situation you're worried about is actually more
difficult than implementing the correct situation, so this doesn't need to be a
concern :-)

If you're worried, you could say this at appropriate places in
Chan.I.Addressing:

    If the protocol's identifiers can be represented as a vCard field, and
    the connection manager supports this interface, then
    every channel whose _TargetHandleType_ is Contact MUST have
    non-empty _TargetVCardField_ and _TargetVCardAddress_ properties that
    represent the _TargetID_.

    (For instance, XMPP channels that communicate with a contact would
    have TargetVCardField = "x-jabber", and TargetVCardAddress equal to
    TargetID; channels on a SIP connection with a PSTN gateway might
    have a TargetVCardField of either "x-sip" or "tel".)

    If the protocol's identifiers can be represented as a URI,
    and the connection manager supports this interface, then every
    channel whose _TargetHandleType_ is Contact MUST have a non-empty
    _TargetURI_ property that represents the _TargetID_, and
    a corresponding _TargetURIScheme_ property.

    (For instance, XMPP channels that communicate with a contact would
    have TargetURIScheme = "xmpp", and TargetURI set to an xmpp: URI
    corresponding to the TargetID; channels on a SIP connection with
    a PSTN gateway might have a TargetURIScheme of either "sip", "sips"
    or "tel".)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.