Doug Royer wrote:
Is it time to move xCal from draft to RFC status?
Why would you want to do that? What is the advantage of adding a new standard?
What new standard? My draft proposes no new components, properties, parameters, or values. My draft does not propose any change to any component, property, parameter, or value..
It explicitly states it is a representation if iCal. That's why I released the XSLT transform to iCal on surceforge prior to this request. So that it was clear and verifiable that it was a 1:1 mapping of iCal.
To me, that doesn't seem to simplify things, it just adds more problems. I would just drop the thing, and live with one standard (it might not be a perfect standard, but we need to live with it anyway,> convert all apps and all files out there)
There are TWO OTHER XML calendaring drafts. Perhaps you read one of the other XML calendar drafts out there? Both of those other drafts are not a 1:1 mapping to iCal.
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com -------------------------------|-----------------------------
begin:vcard fn:Doug Royer n:Royer;Doug org:INET-Consulting.com adr:;;;;;;U.S.A email;internet:Doug@xxxxxxxxx title:CEO tel;work:866-594-8574 tel;fax:866-594-8574 note;quoted-printable:AOL: SupportUnix=0D=0A= MSN: Support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=0D=0A= Yahoo: Help4Unix x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://Royer.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature