Subject: Re: Delimiter characters in relativeCalUID

From: "Frank Dawson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:43:21 -0500

On Monday, March 29, 1999 4:14 PM, John Stracke wrote, in part:
(I might suggest we call them "reserved characters", in case we
>think of something else to do with them other than delimiters; but
whatever.)

John, old buddy, what exactly is "in case we thing of something else..."
mean?

Our design should be tight but flexible, I agree. However, leaving
capabilities undefined in something as fundamental as "addressing" seems to
be "bad". Addressing in CAP needs to be precise, terse and without ambiguity
in specification. This waving of hands about what we "could" do with some
undefined feature doesn't seem to be a "good thing".

- - Frank

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:47:02 +0000

> John, old buddy, what exactly is "in case we thing of something else..."

I don't know; that's the point.  :-) The point is just that we should have some
reserved characters so that we don't consume the entire namespace; Future
Generations (i.e., us, next year) can decide what to do with the rest of the
namespace.

--
/=============================================================\
|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 |
\=============================================================/