Subject: CAP: commands need definitions, not just examples

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:34:32 -0400

For most of the commands CAP defines, we don't actually get a formal 
definition; we just get some informal descriptive text and some 
examples. This is a problem, because, with a firm definition, it'll be 
impossible to determine whether any given implementation is compliant. 
For example, in the first example in 7.2.1.2.1, it is unclear whether 
the two calendars created need to be created in the order specified. In 
the second example, the text does not match the example: it says "The 
response contains the calendar (CALID) and UID of the component"--but it 
doesn't; there are no CALID or UID properties in the response.

-- 
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Among animals, it's eat or be eaten. Among   |
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>|people, it's define or be defined.           |
\==============================================================/

---

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:37:42 -0400

Its on the CAP  to do list.

George