Standard for address books ?

[Mildred]

(I don't understand why my mailer decided to send this email privately
and not in the list, so I forward to you all)

Le Wed 28/11/2007 à 14:07 Henry Jen à écrit:
> 
> IMHO, the main issue is what data need to be included in such an
> address book, i.e. the schema.
> As access method, many MUA today supports LDAP, maybe the protocol can
> be used as a shortcut to achieve this goal?
> 

It would require to have a LDAP server on a desktop machine. I don't
think it is a good idea .... Maybe some settings in ~/.local/config
could be set to define a program to call to talk LDAP with it (using
standard I/O).

Maybe this can even be part of the .desktop files specification. This
reminds me the previous post of Patrice Dumas "protocol/scheme entry
in .desktop?".

For example we could have many .desktop files that identifies local
LDAP servers that could be run on-demand by every program that needs
the address book. And the default one is taken the same way the default
application for a MIME type is taken today.

But this would need to write some code I think. That is write a LDPA
server that could fit well on a desktop machine, and that can be
launched on-demand very quickly and that uses standard IO instead of
TCP.


***
Or maybe something using dbus. That seems more suitable than some
protocol that is designed to work on a network. But I don't know how a
dbus address book server could be launched on-demand.
***


> > Maybe my idea of a shared database is not really good, but I don't
> > see something else. If you have any ideas, please share.
> >
> > Also, if a such standard exists, I didn't find it (and it is
> > obviously not applied), please give me pointers.
> >
> 
> As for format or schema, there are vCard, FOAF, and LDAP schema
> defined from various sources. I am not sure if there is a dominate
> standard.
> 
> If we can get open source projects agree on a common set of schema,
> that would be a great achievement. :-)

I think we need flexibility, otherwise some may not use the standard
(because they need this flexibility). I don't know how LDIF works but I
think that all these schemas share some common attributes (like name,
email, ...) In my opinion, the best way would be to be able to do
conversions between schemas.

In fact I don't really know how LDIF works, so I may be totally wrong
here. I just want to say that the format used should be extensible so
that any application could add an attribute to the database. For
example if a new communication protocol (like jabber for example) pops
out, the format should be extensible enough to allow the addresses of
this protocol to be added.
At first, it may not be standard and every software would pick a
different name, but they should be able to converge back to a single
name if it is standardized. So I think that the non standard attributes
should be possible, but they should be placed in different namespace
(like the X-* headers in e-mails or the -moz-/-khtml-/... attributes in
CSS)


...

I really want to see a standard emerging there. I can't stand anymore
the current situation where software can't talk with each other.

Mildred

-- 
Mildred Ki'lya
E-Mail:	mildred593(at)online.fr

Site:	<http://mildred632.free.fr/>
XMPP:	<mildred at jabber.fr> (GoogleTalk, Jabber)

GPG:	197C A7E6 645B 4299 6D37 684B 6F9D A8D6 [9A7D 2E2B]