Subject: Re: draft-07 - XML

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:01:06 -0400

I might be wrong, but if we are suggesting changing the format of the 
ABNF, then, indeed, we need to update the version of previous RFC's.  But, 
I think we may have to do that anyway.  There are things coming out of the 
interop testing that need to go into iCalendar.  Should we not try to get 
them in and incorporate any other "matters that arise".  Since it's an 
established RFC, and if we can prove that the changes are required and 
won't break (but rather fix) vendor implementations, and ... we get the 
list to approve them, then getting the RFC's through should not be that 
long of a process.  I believe the "getting the list to approve" will be 
the hard part.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
06/12/02 13:51

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: draft-07 - XML

Doug Royer wrote:
> 
> After this I will ignore ALL of these three points.
> 
>         WE ARE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THINGS - AND IT IS IN OUR CHARTER.

Of course we are!  I never said otherwise.

> 
>         WE ARE ALLOWED TO ADD THINGS.

Of course we are!  I never said otherwise.

> 
>         VERSION 2.0 REFERS TO THE FORMAT, NOT THE CONTENT.

Correct, and here's what RFC 2445 says (Section 2):

   This memo makes use of both a descriptive prose and a more formal
   notation for defining the calendaring and scheduling format.

   The notation used in this memo is the ABNF notation of [RFC 2234].
   Readers intending on implementing this format defined in this memo
   should be familiar with this notation in order to properly interpret
   the specifications of this memo.

It is my understanding that RFC 2445 makes use of ABNF "for
defining the calendaring and scheduling format" and that you want
to change the ABNF, which in turn will change... the format!

Cheers,
Bernard
-- 
Bernard Desruisseaux                    mailto:[email-masked]
Research & Development                  Tel.  : +1 514 733-8500 x4213
Steltor                                 Fax   : +1 514 733-8878

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:28:54 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:
> ABNF, then, indeed, we need to update the version of previous RFC's.
>  But, I think we may have to do that anyway.  There are things coming
> out of the interop testing that need to go into iCalendar.  Should we
> not try to get them in and incorporate any other "matters that arise".
>  Since it's an established RFC, and if we can prove that the changes
> are required and won't break (but rather fix) vendor implementations,
> and ... we get the list to approve them, then getting the RFC's
> through should not be that long of a process.  I believe the "getting
> the list to approve" will be the hard part.

Given that there are ways to implement CAP without having to
change RFC 2445 and RFC 2446, I believe that we should stay
focused on CAP and not work on these RFCs for now.

Cheers,
Bernard