Re: [Ietf-calsify] xCal - time to submit?

[Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun Oct 23 13:28:11 2005, Aki Niemi wrote:
> ext Doug Royer wrote:
> > What move?
>
> As in stop using the current format and start using the new one.
>
> > What transition?
>
> As in how to cope with the co-existance of applications that 
> support the  new format and the old format, and applications that 
> only support the old format.

I think the problem with xCal is not that it's an irrelevant and 
pointless format, because it isn't - I think it's potentially very 
useful. But it's nothing to do with this WG, which is why reaction is 
pretty hostile. Here, the WG is trying to get decent interoperability 
between calendaring applications. XML doesn't help that in the 
slightest, and as you point out, if anything, it hurts that.

However, many existing systems work "better" with XML, and so I can 
fully understand that a neat method of producing iCal objects in XML 
is valuable. No, I don't want to see iMIP capable CUAs start to send 
out xCal, as that'd be pointless, but yes, a web-based calendaring 
system might well be capable of spitting out xCal if requested, and 
some simple front-ends may even require that - and that's fine.

So essentially, I think xCal as a concept is fine, just that care 
should be taken to define its scope a little better.

I *haven't* read the draft, incidentally, but I still can tell the 
scope is obviously not clearly defined, because otherwise the threads 
going on in this WG about xCal would presumably be very different.

If xCal is actually presented as "a better format", then it's 
over-egging itself (I think a child of four could make a better 
format than iCal, but the deployed base renders this a waste of 
time). If xCal presents itself as a format more suited to XML-centric 
environments, than I'm all for it.

Dave.
--
          You see things; and you say "Why?"
  But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
   - George Bernard Shaw