Re: xCalendar draft revision submitted

That's a very interesting approach Tim. Have you seen the GRDDL work?

http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec

Libby

On Mon, 10 May 2004 [email protected] wrote:

>
> The draft doesn't preclude doing a one-to-one representation, but I also
> wanted to allow the flexibility for other smaller XML representations of
> scheduling info. Another small example in the draft shows a band's
> performance schedule; it follows its own DTD ans has its own format for
> dates, etc. - but is "compliant" because it includes a transform that can
> make that XML document into an iCalendar file. This draft allows for
> "one-way" implementations where you can go from XML to iCalendar, but not
> (easily, at least) back the other way.
>
> I decided to require the XSL transformation because XSL was designed to
> work with XML and many programs already support it.
>
> Tim Hare
> Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.
>
> At 12:19 PM 5/10/04, you wrote:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>I took as a basic approach that a document could be an XML calendar
> >>document if it had any sort of calendaring information in XML, but that
> >>to be xCalendar compliant it must provide an XSLT transform that can
> >>create an iCalendar text file;
> >
> >XSLT is pretty heavyweight.  Why not just make the XML a 1-1 rendition of
> >the text/calendar?
> >
> >--
> >/==========================================\
> >|John Stracke      |[email protected]   |
> >|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
> >|Centive           |My opinions are my own.|
> >|==========================================|
> >|Maybe only the solipsists are imaginary.  |
> >\==========================================/
>
>
>
>