[uf-discuss] RE: Disconnect between hCard and RFC 2426 (vCard
Costello, Roger L.
costello at mitre.org
Sun Oct 22 06:43:37 PDT 2006
I sent this message a couple days ago and got no response, so I am
resending. Does anyone have thoughts on the issue I raised? /Roger
From: Costello, Roger L.
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 12:02 PM
To: microformats-discuss at microformats.org
Subject: Disconnect between hCard and RFC 2426 (vCard specification)?
I am reading the vCard specification (RFC 2426) and there seems to be
some disconnects between it and the hCard specification.
The vCard specification says that it is to be used to provide white
pages information about a person:
"This document defines a [MIME-DIR] usage profile for conveying
directory information based on one such schema; that of the white-pages
type of person object."
The hCard specification says
- that it is a 1-to-1 correspondence to RFC 2426, and
- that it is used to create an hCard for people, for companies, for
and for places:
"hCard is a simple, open, distributed format for representing *people*,
*companies*, *organizations*, and *places*, using a 1:1 representation
of the properties and values of the vCard standard (RFC 2426)"
There seems to be a disconnect. Only people have vCards. Companies,
organizations, and places don't have vCards. How can hCard be a 1-to-1
correspondence to vCard if it allows an hCard for an organization, or a
place, or a company?
RFC 2426 uses the terminology "type", e.g., FN Type
hCard uses the terminology "property", e.g., FN property
"This specification introduces the hCard format, which uses a 1:1
representation of the *properties* and values of the aforementioned
Shouldn't there be consistency of terminology?
More information about the microformats-discuss