RE: iCalendar as an XML DTD

[Mark Baker <distobj@xxxxxxx>]

At 03:00 PM 15/4/98 -0500, Dan Hickman wrote:
>We DEFINITELY DO NOT want to have multiple grammars for any standard.  You 
>would be unnecessarily creating two standards that developers must 
>implement.

We could and should make the XML based grammar optional, since we clearly
can't ignore the legacy format.  But at the same time, we've got to move
forward and embrace the standard self-describing format that didn't exist
when CALSCH got started.

Would Frank like to comment on this?  <nudge nudge>

>I, for one, couldn't tell you the first thing about why XML wouldn't be 
>good for iCalendar.  Actually, when I first looked at XML, I thought it 
>would be a good idea to use something like it since there are parsers 
>already available for it.  I think the main argument against XML for 
>iCalendar is that the iCalendar standard is already finished and is built 
>on a proven grammar that is fairly compatible with the first version of 
>iCalendar (vCalendar).  It is too late to change it.  Please, lets get this 
>standard out so we can actually start using it!!

Agreed, but that shouldn't so much (IMHO) be considered an "argument
against XML", as it should be considered a challenge to find room for
coexistance.

Straw poll.  Who here *wouldn't* like to be able to present and interact
with calendars via style sheets in a browser?

MB