Re: list of items (recur-id is not CAP)

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Hare wrote:

> Critical:
>   A.    Consensus that the original author's interpretation of 
> recurrence-ID handling (quoted here) is or is not what should happen. 


This is an iTIP (or iCAL) issue, not a CAP issue. Although it will 
effect the code in
an implementation it will not effect the CAP protocol.

It needs to be moved from the CAP issue list to the iTIP-next (or 
iCAL-next) issue list.

--

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug@xxxxxxxxx                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                              |   Cell: (208)520-4044

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature