Subject: RE: XML and CAP discussion

From: "Lisa Lippert (Dusseault) (Exchange)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:19:26 -0800

Microsoft has already made some investment in legacy iCalendar, but we're
very interested in the XML iCalendar format.  We're interested for some of
the exact reasons you're working on XML -- XML documents can include
iCalendar elements and your contract staffing elements together.  It's an
area we're willing to make significant new investments in.  

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Wolff [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 8:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: XML and CAP discussion

Let me throw in with the XML view. If the group adopts an XML DTD as the
base/required syntax, developers get to draw on the all the related work and
protocols rapidly evolving around XML. Parsers, styles for presentation,
remote
procedure calls, content distribution/syndication, and industry-specific XML
vocabularies.
    I'm working on an XML DTD for the contract staffing industry. It would
be
great to able to include the CAP definitions by reference for things like
office hours, time card data, time card due dates, contract durations,
contract
bidding periods, project milestones, etc. These are more than plain old date
fields; they represent the convergence of people/objects, places, and time:
the
stuff of CAP.
    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.

Phil Wolff
a long time and frequent lurker to this list
-----------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:[email-masked],[email-masked]

---

From: "Frank Dawson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:28:15 -0500

Lisa Lippert wrote, in part:

>Microsoft has already made some investment in ***legacy iCalendar***, but
we're
>very interested in the XML iCalendar format.

Lisa and/or Microsoft seem to be confused about the status of RFC 2445,
"iCalendar". This is THE current standard. It is in no way a "legacy"
specification. It was published November 1999. This is the target
specification for current interoperability work. This is the basis for any
current CAP discussion. There can be no discussion about these facts.

Any work on an XML encoding for iCalendar would have to be characterized as
"experimental", in contrast to the STANDARD format, as specified in RFC
2445.

- - Frank