RFC Errata
RFC 6350, "vCard Format Specification", August 2011
Note: This RFC has been updated by RFC 6868, RFC 9554, RFC 9555
Source of RFC: vcarddav (app)
Errata ID: 7061
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Ken Murchison
Date Reported: 2022-07-29
Section 8 says:
TEL;VALUE=uri;TYPE="work,voice";PREF=1:tel:+1-418-656-9254;ext=102 TEL;VALUE=uri;TYPE="work,cell,voice,video,text":tel:+1-418-262-6501
It should say:
TEL;VALUE=uri;TYPE=work,voice;PREF=1:tel:+1-418-656-9254;ext=102 TEL;VALUE=uri;TYPE=work,cell,voice,video,text:tel:+1-418-262-6501
Notes:
While the given TYPE parameters are grammatically correct, in their current form they don't portray what I believe to be the intent of the example. In their current form, both TYPE parameters have just a single value because of the quoting. Since TYPE can be multi-valued, I believe the intent of the example was for these parameters to have 3 and 5 values respectively which is accomplished by the corrected text.
Unfortunately, even though examples are only informative (the ABNF is always normative), the mistake in the example has led to implementations in the wild that perform the same quoting but also assume that the parameter should be treated as multi-valued.