Re: iCalendar Extensions Proposal

[Eric Busboom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, George Babics wrote:

>   This analogy brings up the question: what if people want to
> create extensions of extensions? For instance, an extension to
> Skical that only deals with music concerts.

Either update the SkiCal RFC or make a new RFC. Flexibility is nice, but
it should only go so far, and in this case that is one level of
extension. 

> > their usage (see our ongoing discussion about how much detail to have in the
> > Summary or Description properties.)?
> 
>   If we do have some extension mechanism, we should perhaps consider
> having some guidelines or rules for those adding extensions?

I don't think we need this either, since the cost of creating a new
specification, getting it through the IETF, and convincing other vendors
to implement the specification is high enough to weed out really dumb
extensions. 

Besides, the extension is not part of iCalendar, so boneheaded extensions
will not dilute core iCalendar functionality any more than boneheaded X
properties would.

eric.