[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG
On Jul 30, 2004, at 4:06 PM, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
I would support this...
If the CAP RFC is published and the WG is closed the signal to
implementors is clear.
While I never want to argue with people who are agreeing with me, I
have to say that I do NOT view my plan as implying that it's time for
everyone to implement CAP. For my part, I believe that iCal as it
stands is sufficiently flawed that *no* CAP-like protocol can be made
to work really well. I believe that we need to go back and clean up
iCal, and that if we do that right it will make possible a much cleaner
real-time access protocol. In that sense, I want to send precisely the
opposite signal from the one you infer.
I will welcome the publication of CAP, but given the state of iCal it
will be hard for me to view it as anything more than a useful
experiment, to be re-evaluated (and probably simplified) once we clean
up (and simplify) iCal. For that reason I will also argue for its
publication with a status of Experimental rather than Proposed
Standard. -- Nathaniel