Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Just for the record. Notes has a full implementationof VTODOs

From: pstephenson at gw.novell.com (Preston Stephenson)
Date: Tue Aug 17 13:21:43 2004

Are VFREEBUSY requests on the table?
There was a discussion of iTip VFREEBUSY in CAP.
There were opposing views a how it should look/work.
We (GroupWise) have had VFREEBUSY internally for 10+ years.
We don't expose the VFREEBUSY to external users, yet.
We were looking to expose it in a standard's way.
That's also why I asked about the VTODO's and VJOURNAL.
We've had similar concepts for some time and was looking for a way to
expose it.
If the consensus is to only do VEVENTS, that's fine.
Preston

>>> <[email-masked]> 08/17/04 1:39 PM >>>
I disagree.  There is very little diffence between the VTODO and the 
VCALENDAR.  Both have the same repeat behavior and attendee
information. 
The only difference is that the VTODO has a few additional response 
states.

I have no problem with removing journal entries, since these are
basically 
different than a Calendar or group todo.  Also I do not know of any 
implimentors.

Has anybody implimented iTip VFREEBUSY requests?

"Cameron Stillion" <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked] 
08/17/2004 03:27 PM

To
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
RE: [Ietf-calsify] Just for the record. Notes has a full
implementationof 
VTODOs

I realize there are actually a few vendors out there who have actually
put the time and effort into implementing VTODO from the previously
proposed standard.  I question whether this investment was made in
response to users clamoring for more task-management features from
calendaring systems, or if it was done simply because it happens to be
in the spec.  I know of no web sites that publish task lists using
this
mechanism, no clients that even propose to interoperate in this way.
 
Also, I think it is clearly outside the scope of this standard (and
indeed this working group) to attempt to define a standard schema for
ALL OTHER PIM DATA TYPES.  I suggest that one of the mistakes made by
previous attempts to bring iCal to standard is that they tried to
extend
the notion of a calendar data type to include task items and journal
items, which are different beasts, and should be treated differently.
They have different schemas, different semantics, and applications who
want to communicate using such data types will have very different
requirements for those data types.
 
I suggest that we stick to calendaring exclusively.  Removing support
for VTODO and VJOURNAL will hurt very few if any clients.  Systems
that
have implemented a means of parsing or generating these datatypes, I
would argue, have no compelling interoperability scenario or clear
user
features compelling in the space we are working in.  If there is
sufficient interest in specifying such data structures, I suggest that
separate working groups and separate documents be created to bring
these
Task and Journal schemas into the standards process.
 
If we try to take on the whole PIM data enchilada, I believe we will
fail as have previous attempts to make calendaring and scheduling
schemas and systems speak a standard language. 
 
camerost 

________________________________

From: [email-masked] 
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 7:50 AM
To: [email-masked] 
Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Just for the record. Notes has a full
implementationof VTODOs

_______________________________________________
Ietf-calsify mailing list
[email-masked] 
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify