Subject: RE: iCalendar Extension Process [Was: RE: Extensions To iCalendar ]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:28:38 -0600

John:

Mandating an RFC publication is not what is in the RFC published process for
adding iCalendar properties and parameter ;-)

I disagree that we should abitrarily require this for registered extensions.
The process provides a review process. If there are issues that come up in
the nominal review of an extension, then requests for grouping the extension
into a new document can be one disposition for contentious extension
proposals.

But to make this norm for all proposed new registrations is overkill and
only hurts the development of iCalendar.

-- Frank

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:53:40 -0500

> only hurts the development of iCalendar.

How's that? I don't really see why extending the standard should be taken more
lightly than creating it in the first place.  Me, I believe that a too-easy
extension process will hurt deployment of iCalendar; the easier it is to
extend, the more incompatibilities there will be.

At a minimum, we should require publication of an Informational RFC, so that
the definitions of the extensions can be found.

--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might|
[email-masked]|as well *dance*!                              |
\===============================================================/

---

From: "Greg FitzPatrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:51:38 +0100

If I understand I agree:-)

Greg

Frank wrote:

--