Subject: W-6 SKI project additions

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:22:20 -0700

W-6 Do we need to handle 'unscheduled
    event' as described by the SKI project? 

I think that consensus is N. This is to be added as
an additional work item (draft) or new working group.

-- 
Doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work: [email-masked]              Home    801 Woodside Rd
#14-244
      530 E. Montecito St.                 Office: Redwood City, CA
94061
      Santa Barbara, CA 93103
      805-957-1790 x541                    Personal Email:
[email-masked]

---

From: "Greg FitzPatrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:59:11 +0200

This surprises me, I thought that once we had solved the syntax problems,
that there was a consensus for this addition.

Greg

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 07:43:06 -0700

Maybe I am mistaken.

I thought people were concerned with backward computability.
I do not think the idea was rejected. Just that it needs to
be compatible.

Then there was talk about a new working group so that
iCalendar and CAP could proceed. I thought they were related.

PAT?

-Doug