[Ietf-caldav] Re: [Ietf-calsify] Calsify list vs. CalDAV list?
lisa at osafoundation.org
Tue Aug 17 10:21:51 PDT 2004
That wasn't what I was trying to convey, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear
enough about the purpose of the two lists. The purpose of CALSIFY is
only to revise the iCalendar, and possibly iMIP and iTIP RFCs, to go to
draft standard, if that can be done and can improve interoperability
and deployment. Since you can't add features when going to draft
standard, clearly any "server" feature, including notifications, is out
of scope for CALSIFY.
The CalDAV group might decide that notifications is out of scope, but
at least it's worth discussing whether notifications are a MUST, a
feature to do later, or a feature to not even think about right now. I
suspect our job will be a lot simpler if we declare notifications out
of scope for now, although I'd be happy to work on calendar event
notifications next after CalDAV.
On Aug 16, 2004, at 5:34 PM, TimHare at comcast.net wrote:
> Sorry for the cross-post but it seems relevant. Let me preface this by
> saying that I haven't read all of CalDAV yet - and I suspect I need to
> be up to speed on DAV first. That said - it seems to me some of the
> discussion going on now on the CalDAV list re: notifications and
> client/server complexity are issues (either "also" or "instead") for
> the Calsify list?
> Tim Hare
> Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.
> Ietf-calsify mailing list
> Ietf-calsify at osafoundation.org
More information about the Ietf-caldav