Subject: Re: XML and CAP discussion

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:56:53 -0800 (PST)

> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:20:05 -0800
> From: Phil Wolff <[email-masked]>
> 
> Let's switch horses while it's early in the race.
> I'd also like to hear how much delay or rework is really involved for
> developers who've already started down the ICAL path to make the switch.

Its is NOT early in the race. The iCalendar objects are already an RFC,
as in iTIP, and iMIP. There are already products shipping using
implementations based on the RFC's. We can't just abandon them.

Work is in progress to create an XML mapping for iCalendar objects
from and to XML. Pat's email is asking that we go forward and finish
CAP-1 now, then as a CAP-2 - add XML. Amongst the CAP-XML authors,
there is disagreement on some issues - causing delay.

The BIG issue is that if we do not have a CAP draft out by the
summer meeting - the working group CALSCH could be closed down.
Several of us think that we REALLY NEED a CAP, and soon.

My suggestion would be that if you have not already done so,
read the XML-CAP drafts and help! 

-Doug

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 22:46:16 +0000

> summer meeting - the working group CALSCH could be closed down.

Why is that? I realize the WG has been going for nearly 3 years; but it's not
as if no progress has been made.  If the WG were being delayed by lack of
consensus over fundamentals, that'd be one thing; but it seems to me that
that's not the case; most of the work has been done, and we're on the home
stretch.  No?

I've been working with the IETF for only about a year now, so maybe I'm just
missing something about the IETF process; but, intuitively, it wouldn't make
a lot of sense to shut down a WG that's close to completion.  People would
still need a standard, so they'd go off and do it somewhere else; the
protocol that was produced wouldn't have the benefits of IETF oversight; and
the people who got the rug pulled out from under them would be leery of
working with the IETF in the future.  Nobody wins.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/