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

Agreed - I lost track of which discussion thread it was in.

At 12:32 PM 11/21/03 -0700, you wrote:


>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
>
>
>