Subject: Re: draft-07 - XML

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:29:06 -0400

>And, if you read RFC2445 and the others, it says you can use either
>the properties defined in the three drafts (iCal, iTIP and iMIP) or
>any other IANA defined property.  So, if we do what you suggest, a
>mini draft to update RFC2445, wouldn't that work?

Yes, that should work, provided the update revs the version number. 

The problem is that we have an inconsistency in 2445: the semantics of 
VERSION  imply that any change to the definition of text/calendar requires 
a change the version number; but the  Method Reviewer process permits 
changes to the definition without any RFC.

As you know, I am not without an opinion on this subject. I maintain that 
iCalendar properties are interdependent, and cannot be defined in 
isolation, which means that the Method Reviewer process is inappropriate. 
Only a new standards-track RFC should be able to define iCalendar 
properties.  Similarly, if the VERSION property is to be useful, it must 
be updated whenever the spec is updated. 

/========================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer     |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
|========================================================|
|E pui muove! -- Galileo                                 |
\========================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:39:49 -0600

> changes to the definition without any RFC.

VERSION "1.0" (vCalendar) objects look like this:

	BEGIN:VCALENDAR
	VERSION:1.0
	property;parameterValue;parameterValue:propertyValue
	...
	END:VCALENDAR

VERSION "2.0" (iCalendar) objects look like this:

	BEGIN:VCALENDAR
	VERSION:2.0
	property;parameter=value;parameger=value:propertyValue
	...
	END:VCALENDAR

We are NOT proposing changing from the "2.0" format.

---

From: Alan Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:44:40 -0400

I'm not sure where you got this information from, but in my
copy of the vCalendar Specification, there are properties
that look like this:

     ATTENDEE;ROLE=OWNER;STATUS=CONFIRMED:John Smith <[email-masked]>

Surely that's "parameter=value" ?

There's a copy online here if you don't have one to hand:

http://www.memorystick.org/mseasy/eng/ref/vcal-10.pdf

Of course, this discussion might be helped along by actually
looking at the relevant parts of the vCalendar and iCalendar
Specifications:

vCalendar Version 1.0 states:

     2.2.5 Version
          This property specifies the identifier corresponding to the
          highest version number of the vCalendar Specification supported
          by the implementation that created the vCalendar object. The
          value of this property must be 1.0 to correspond to this
          specification..

RFC2445 states:

     4.7.4 Version
          Purpose: This property specifies the identifier corresponding to the
          highest version number or the minimum and maximum range of the
          iCalendar specification that is required in order to interpret the
          iCalendar object.
          [...]
          Description: A value of "2.0" corresponds to this memo

Even though the language is a bit vague, it does seem to refer to the
fact that each memo uses a different version, not whether the structure
has changed (not that the structure changed in the way that you said it
did, of course).

--Alan