Subject: RE: SKiCal - draft - any new version?

From: "Shannon J. Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:38:46 -0500

Greg,

Looks cleaner - like the fairly new HTML formatting of RFC - much easier to
navigate and read.

In quickly skimming the new draft I was struck by one interesting point -
while SKiCAL references RFC 2445 - iCalendar - it does not reference RFC
2446 or RFC 2447 (iTip and iMip) nor does it reference the CAP Draft
document - is this deliberate?

The reason I ask is I am looking at SKiCal in the light of the interrelated
nature of these standards - does SKiCal require changes to any of these
standards? Suggest changes to any of them? Assume functionality/features
from any of them?

Off the top of my head I would figure that there may be a number of changes
needed/suggested by SKiCal to some aspects of CAP - especially related to
the vQuery proposal in that draft - SKiCAL extends significently the number
of fields that are designed for computer facilitated (even automated)
querying) - just having the data structure is perhaps not enough without
systems for easy access to the data in a useful and functional manner (or
else all the information belongs in one large text block - if there aren't
any means to sort, order, and query against the fields...

Shannon
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Greg FitzPatrick [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 7:17 PM
  To: 'Shannon J. Clark'; [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: SKiCal - draft - any new version?

  Shannon wrote:

  >I was looking at the SKiCal draft document recently and realized that it

  >expired as of June 28th, 2001 - has a new version been prepared and

  >submitted?

  Thanks for the reminder Shannon.  We have been so involved with the
last-call version that we had forgotten the previous version had expired.

  Following the discussions on this list there are some changes in this
version (which I am enclosing in HTML) – such as the renaming of LANGUE and
the compromise on SKIROLE.  We did not go all the way with Bruce’s
suggestion for using 2445 ROLE, since we felt it broke iCal, but we did get
rid of all the individual roles for each property (like THING-ROLE).

  Though we have a couple of days left before submission, it would be great
to even now get some reaction to the

    1.. optimeset of property parameters.
    2.. the choice of creating a new calendar component “VOPTIMES” as
opposed to trying to do DTOPEN within the VEVENT component.
    3.. the NAMESPACE property and the NSREF property parameter

  Greg