Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (Versioning)

[Mark Smith <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
> Unfortunately CAP does not say much more on the topic of using
> versions which means there is no clearly defined behaviour or
> expectations for CAP 1.0 implementations to follow in a consistant
> manner.

Again you must be reading a version of CAP with text missing.
Try re-downloading the version that explains it.

> Currently it is not a list of supported versions of CAP, it is a
> single valued property with no clearly defined behaviour for going
> forward.  The issue of the "1.0" (pre-July 2003) vs "XXXX" RFC number
> (~July 2003) value change is secondary to the funcational questions of
> it.

Again you must have missed the text that calles it multivalued.
> 
> > So I do not think it has the same problem as the MIME-Version and
> iCAL
> > VERSION properties.
> 
> The problem is compound:
> 
> 1: The property is currently single valued, not multivalued.

Not true == please read CAP before posting.

> 2: The property has no clear definition of dealing with multiple
> values (ie: what is the expected or recommended behaviour if multiple
> values are found).


Not true == please read CAP before posting.