Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> How is this "bad" functionality treated differently than issues found and publicized after a 90-day-count-down in the security disclosure universe?

For one, these aren't security issues.

Also, they do document the parts of the standards that they don't support or adhere to:

https://developers.google.com/google-apps/carddav/

Their documentation could probably be more complete, but it does say, for example, that they don't support user defined fields on WebDAV requests.

I suppose they could have opted to not mention CardDAV or the other standards and just published an API called GCard or something like that.

They do mention that interoperating with Apple's operating systems is working, so that may be what determined the subset they care about.

> service which when used correctly WILL corrupt users' data

So that comes back to who gets to define what correct use is? If you follow the Google documentation and are losing data, then I agree with you. They should fix the problem or update the documentation.



Aaaaaah they are in the clear then - I am alarmist and retract my assertion:

> "We have not implemented the full specification, however many clients such as Apple iOS™ Contacts and Apple Mac™ OS should interoperate correctly."

They've explained they're non-conformant so all is well IMO.

Thanks for the corrections and critique criddell.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: