I would like to invite the WG members to provide feedback about a topic
that might impact on future RDAP implementations.
If you are interested, please reply on JMAP mailing list.
Any contribution is welcome.
Thanks a lot,
Mario
-------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
Oggetto: [Jmap] JSContact: how to localize content
Data: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 14:12:38 +0200
Mittente: Robert Stepanek <r...@fastmailteam.com>
A: j...@ietf.org
At the joint CALEXT/JMAP interim meeting
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2021-jmap-01-202104150300/>
in April we discussed options how localize JSContact values. This can be
useful to provide names and addresses in multiple languages within the
same contact. In VCARD this is achieved with the LANG parameter.
We would now like to find consensus how to achieve this in JSContact.
*Current approach*
The current scheme in the spec defines a LocalizedString object for
fields that can be localized. A LocalizedString has a value and optional
localized variants of this value:
"addresses": {
"addr1": {
"city": {
"value": "Tokyo",
"localizations": {
"jp": "東京"
}
}
} }
The idea is to keep values and their localizations close. It is built on
the assumption that the majority of values will have localized variants.
*Proposed approach*
Multiple participants in the interim meeting vouched for replacing the
current approach with the one defined in section 4.6.1
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8984#section-4.6.1> of the
JSCalendar RFC. That is, the "localizations" property is a JSON object
where the keys are language tags, and the values are patch objects which
overwrite one or multiple properties within a contact.
A main benefit of this is to reuse for the same approach in both JMAP
calendars and contacts. It treats localized content as the exception,
not the norm, and the data types should reflect this. Any property value
can be localized (except if the spec explicitly forbids it). In
contrast, only values of LocalizedString can be localized in the current
approach.
This an example how to localize a single address field:
"addresses": {
"addr1": {
"city": "Tokyo",
}
},
"localizations": {
"jp": {
"addresses/addr1/city":"東京"
}
}
To fully localize an address, one would write:
"localizations": {
"jp": {
"addresses/addr1": { "city": "東京" }
}
}
*Finding consensus*
Mario and I would now like to know which approach you prefer, or any
other you would like to propose. Our goal is to reach clear consensus.
We look forward to your feedback.
Thanks,
Robert
_______________________________________________
Jmap mailing list
j...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap
_______________________________________________
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
