[Ietf-calsify] Re: What's wrong with more radical simplification?
helge.hess at opengroupware.org
Fri Feb 11 10:28:07 PST 2005
On 11. Feb 2005, at 18:30 Uhr, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> I think it basically boils down to the two views of standards:
> 1) A standard should describe what every application MUST implement.
> If an
> application wants to do something more, it's on its own. ("lowest
> 2) A standard gives a suggestion how an application might implement
> any (even
> very exotic) feature. No application will ever implement full support
> every little detail of such a standard, but if it implements one
> feature, it
> can be sure that any other application that implements a similar
> feature will
> be able to reuse the data.
I think this is painted rather black and white which is not how it
needs to be. As mentioned there can be extensions and things like
rrules and timezones certainly make a lot of sense.
But to have interoperability (aka a _standard_) you MUST agree on
certain blocks of functionality. I can't see how a standard can work
Your example of "if it implements one feature, it can be sure that any
other application that implements a similar feature will be able to
reuse the data" is obviously wrong, because this other application will
not understand some other obscure feature you are using in the same
> it seems most people here think that a standard is just for those
> parts that
> every application must implement (i.e. every detail of a standard
> needs to be
> supported by an application).
Well, I would say thats the core definition of the word "standard" and
not the "thinking" of the people here ;-)
> However, what I like so much about iCalendar is that it gives you a
> standardized way for lots of advanced features.
Si, iCalendar currently seems to be more like a framework to choose
implementation suggestions from, less an actual standard (which someone
is really compliant with). I thought the goal of calsify was to fix
exactly this situation.
More information about the Ietf-calsify