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

[Tim Hare <TimHare@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed - I lost track of which discussion thread it was in.

At 12:32 PM 11/21/03 -0700, you wrote:


> 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