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

Doug replied on 11/03/2003 04:42:26 PM:
> > 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.

My appologies for not be more precise in the question.  I was referring to 
using a numeric values like VERSION (which actually is biparted):

     version    = "VERSION" verparam ":" vervalue CRLF

     verparam   = *(";" xparam)

     vervalue   = "2.0"         ;This memo
                / maxver
                / (minver ";" maxver)

     minver     = <A IANA registered iCalendar version identifier>
     ;Minimum iCalendar version needed to parse the iCalendar object

     maxver     = <A IANA registered iCalendar version identifier>
     ;Maximum iCalendar version needed to parse the iCalendar object

So to rephrase a bit: Is there a reason that CAP-VERSION is not defined 
using something like:

   cap-version   = "CAP-VERSION" capverparams ":" capvervalue *("," 
capvervalue) CRLF

  capverparams   = *(
                ; the following are optional,
                ; and MAY occur more than once

                (";" iana-params) /
                (";" xparam) 
                )

   capvervalue   = "1.0"         ;This memo
                / iana-capver

   iana-capver   = <A IANA registered CAP version identifier>
     ;Any other IANA registered CAP version that the sender supports

This is how we defined recurrence and exception dates (multivalued) and 
VERSION ("1.0" instead of the RFC number) in iCalendar.

> > 2: When did we say CAP-VERSION was to be the RFC number? 
> 
> As you pointed out about it must have been -10

Did we actually discuss exchanging "1.0" for the RFC number at some point? 
 I dont recall any WG discussion on it nor can I find any in the archives. 
 

A check of the archives for "CAP-VERSION" shows we talked about the 
GET-CAPABILITY command being mandated for all implementations back 
~Oct/Nov 2002 and back then we used CAP-VERSION:1.0. 

On 15-Apr-2003 in the thread "Diffs - ftp://royer.com/pub/CALSCH/cap.txt" 
we were using "1.0" still.

The next time I find a reference is Dougs "CAP ABNF" posting dated 
06/14/2003 05:38:19 PM CST that had:

   254   cap-version   = "CAP-VERSION" other-params ":" text CRLF

but nothing inbetween nor anything that discussed the change on the list. 
Hence my question: _When_ did we say CAP-VERSION was to be the RFC number? 
 

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email protected]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...