Re: CAP-12-e: CAP-VERSION Property

[email protected] wrote:

>
> In looking at Tims proposal I noticed that CAP-VERSION is not properly 
> described/defined.  12-e says:
>
>    Description: This specifies the version of CAP that the endpoint
>   supports. The list is a comma separated list of RFC numbers
>   supported. The list MUST contain at least XXXX (NOTE 'XXXX' WILL BE
>   REPLACED WITH THE RFC NUMBER OF THIS DOCUMENT).
>
>    Formal Definition: The property is defined by the following notation:
>
>   cap-version   = "CAP-VERSION" other-params ":" text CRLF
>
>   Example: The following are examples of this property:
>
>   CAP-VERSION:XXXX
>
> 1: Is there a reason CAP-VERSION is not defined like VERSION is in 
> iCalendar? 

It is a multivalued field unlike VERSION. So you could say you are RFC 
X, and Z compatible
skipping Y if needed.

>  That is, why it is not a numeric value or formatted like a numeric 
> value?  It used to be last I checked on it back in CAP-09:
>
>      CAP-VERSION        1     Version of CAP. It MUST include at least 
> "1.0"
>                              for this version of CAP. Like the "VERSION"
>                              property, it may have a range. Uses the exact
>                              same syntax as the "VERSION" property value.
>                              The default is "1.0".
>
> 2: When did we say CAP-VERSION was to be the RFC number? 


As you pointed out about it must have been -10

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email protected]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                               |   Cell: (208)520-4044

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards