Subject: RE: SV: The SKiCal extensions

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 06:53:38 +0100

At 5:34 PM -0600 1/31/01, Shannon J. Clark wrote:
>I thought that one of the purposes of the X- properties were to allow for
>properties specific to one application. Why shouldn't this still be used for
>extensions to iCalendar such as SKiCal? (X-SKI- is what is currently used by
>the SKiCal draft)

X- is to be used for private properties which are not registered 
anywhere. As soon as the property is well known, it should not have 
an X- name.

X- names should NOT be registered by inclusion in an RFC.

    paf

-- 
Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>       Internet Engineering Task Force
Area Director, Applications Area                   http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212            (San Jose) +1-408-525-0940
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:56:57 +0000

Eric, I like your thoughts about the SKICAL extensions.  They make a lot 
of sense.  The way you put it, it does make more sense (especially since 
there are 20 entries) to do some sort of independent RFC.  One of the 
reasons Greg posted the items to this list is to gain an acceptance for 
the fact that they do want to do these events and want to make sure they 
do not break iCalendar.  As long as the draft makes sure that people 
understand they are extensions and may not work with other products if 
they do not fully implement iCalendar specs - then OK.  Greg had posted a 
last call on his draft and wanted to make sure all the entries were worded 
appropriately so implementors could use them. Since there are several 
calendar implementors on this list, it is a perfect place for him to get 
feedback.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:38:09 -0600

> Will this feature be used as part of an exchange of 
> information BETWEEN
> calendaring systems (perhaps should be considered as part of 
> CAP?) - which
> already has a Capabilities property I think.

The scope of the discussion was iCalendar; which doesn't have such a
capability at present.