Subject: comments on implementors guide

From: Steve Mansour <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:01:03 -0800

Hi,

Definitions appear in both the implementors guide and in CAP. There's a
potential for them to get out of sync.  But I understand why you would
put them in this guide.

You mention iRIP.  You should pull that. Perhaps replace it with CRISP.
This will affect several paragraphs throughout the doc.

Your sample Lunch event does not have a UID

Your iMIP example is missing the METHOD property.

Middle of page 6, there are 3 separate paragraphs that describe cap that
look like they say the same thing.

Page 6, first CAP example.  No UID in the event.

The response from the CAP server looks wrong. johns in the request is
changed to johnd in the reply. I'm also confused about why you get a
response for 2 calendars when the component was only targeted to one
calendar.

BTW, I love the little character people in the diagrams. Can't tell if
they're anatomically correct.

I'm about halfway through. I'll try to finish it up later today and send
more comments.

-Steve

---

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:48:03 -0500

Thanks for the comments!

> This will affect several paragraphs throughout the doc.

  I noticed this a couple of days ago. We forgot to remove them
when iRIP was dropped.

> Your sample Lunch event does not have a UID

  Yep. All the examples are missing a UID. I'll put them in.

> Your iMIP example is missing the METHOD property.

  Its also missing a DTSTAMP.
  I'll also put in a SEQUENCE of 0. (Even though, if 0, it is not required).

> look like they say the same thing.

  Yes, I'll fix this.
  
> response for 2 calendars when the component was only targeted to one

  It was targeted to two calendars:

  TARGET:cap://cal.example.com/johns
  TARGET:janed