Re: CPIM and URIs (summary)

Graham Klyne <[email protected]> writes:

> I'm not sure that there is a compelling reason to base the syntax on
> the email documents.

Graham,

As far as I am concern, your syntax is fine, or a mailto like syntax
is fine.  What is really important to me is this group reaches a rough
consensus on the precise syntax of both instant inbox and presence
URIs, and that that concensus be reflected in the CPIM document in
clear, consistent text.

To the rest of you,

We owe the CPIM authors input on this subject.  How else are they to
complete their task?  

I can't help but notice that, with the latest draft of the PIDF
specification, all but the CPIM document seem complete and viable,
however the CPIM document is still unfinished.  Three sections,
Section 4.3.2 "Presence service", Appendix A "Message/CPIM Profile for
Instant Messaging", and Appendix B "Message/CPIM for Presence" are
clearly missing text.  If this working group closes down at the end of
this month, what happens to the CPIM document?  Leaving it unfinished
is unsettling.

John


  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]