[Fwd: Re: Report from the CALSCH WG meeting at the 58th IETF on 11/11/03]

Oops - this was supposed to be to the list...

-------- Original Message --------

 > Subject: Re: Report from the CALSCH WG meeting at the 58th IETF on 
11/11/03
 > Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:10:09 -0700
 > From: Doug Royer <[email protected]>Organization: http://INET-Consulting.com
 > To: Tim Hare <TimHare@comcast.....

Tim Hare wrote:

>
> I will have to look up what WebDAV is, but the rest of it sounds OK to 
> me.  I wonder if we should also, during our review process, look over 
> the RDF calendar work to see where we can improve synergy with those 
> efforts. At this point I don't understand RDF/Semantic Web items at a 
> deep enough theoretical level but as an old, old, user of markup 
> languages I do "get" the benefits of XML and I believe there were 
> folks who took the xCal work and tried to extend it into RDF?  XML 
> also would allow RSS "feeds" of published calendar info such as 
> schedules.

As all of the WebDAV implementations that I can find get/put .ics files
and only one that I can find also supports RSS, I think if WebDAV makes
it (and I hope it does), it should be iCal-ish and allow XML as an
add-on. Then it is a simply a new transport like CAP or iMIP.
iCal <-> XML(RDF?/RSS) can be separate from WebDAV as it will
restart the old debates.

The xCal debates included the issues:

 Should we extend iCal?
 - I think that if this happens [please no], it should be
   separate from a unity translation of iCal)

 Some wanted it only if they could use XSLT.
 - I can use XSLT, but I do not care if code has to be written.

 Some that wanted XSLT to be able to create the objects, did not
 care if it  was a two way translation.
 - I think any such draft MUST consider translating the
   data in both directions.

 In email, we were strongly informed that we should only allow xCal
 if it was a MUST that text/calendar also be included in the object.
 - I think that for compatibility we have to do this at least initially
   as iCal is still too new to obsolete which I think would be the effect.

Some of us have been emailing privately on this topic - I do not mean
to imply I am the originator of all of  the above ideas.

 

-- 

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



-- 

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