Re: list of items (recur-id is not CAP)

Tim Hare wrote:

> Critical:
>   A.    Consensus that the original author's interpretation of 
> recurrence-ID handling (quoted here) is or is not what should happen. 


This is an iTIP (or iCAL) issue, not a CAP issue. Although it will 
effect the code in
an implementation it will not effect the CAP protocol.

It needs to be moved from the CAP issue list to the iTIP-next (or 
iCAL-next) issue list.

-- 

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