Re: [VCARDDAV] Pseudo-properties in reports, was: vcarddav WGLC on draft-ietf-vcarddav-{carddav, mkcol}

Arnaud Quillaud wrote:
> I think all the points below are valid, except that CardDAV is simply 
> following the approach taken by CalDAV.
> Given the similarities between the 2 protocols, and given that people 
> implementing one are likely to implement the other, it will be very 
> confusing if we start to diverge (and it won't simplify implementations).
 > ...

Well, it *is* confusing for people who haven't implemented CalDAV, but 
other WebDAV extensions, such as SEARCH (which successfully avoided 
overloading properties).

So I personally think if we need to choose between "the right way" and 
"the CalDAV way", we should choose the former (and this also applies to 
other aspecs I haven't mentioned yet, such as the requirements on ETag 
behavior).

Best regards, Julian