Subject: Re: Proposed change to iCal (was RE: Adding more unique identifiers)

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:25:38 -0400

I think we can safely assert that on this list at least, silence does 
not equal consensus.

I would encourage anyone with an opinion on this question to make 
themselves heard...

-Bob

At 9:40 PM -0400 7/25/01, Roger D wrote:
>Did anyone have any opinion on the changes I proposed to iCalendar 
>to add unique identifiers to those components that don't have them, 
>and to those properties that can occur more than once in a 
>component? I haven't seen any feedback on them; the 2 week 
>discussion period is drawing to an end, and I'm not sure whether to 
>interpret silence as concensus or as no-one wanting to take the time 
>to shoot them down?
>
>As currently written, though using them is optional, they do have 
>implementation consequences for all implementors, since even if a 
>calendar system does not choose to add UIDs or PUIDs to things that 
>don't have them in RFC 2445, it MUST store and return them if 
>replying to a request which contained them. Are people happy with 
>this extra requirement?
>
>--Roger
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________
>Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. 
>Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! 
>http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>
>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at 
>http://webmail.netscape.com/