Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Aiding the process (I hope)

From: TimHare at comcast.net ([email-masked])
Date: Thu Sep 9 18:05:11 2004

Can we take the table that Nathaniel posted and/or the XML that I posted, 
and use that to decide which elements need simplification, revision, or 
omission? So far, the only thing that's come close to consensus is the idea 
of using only UTC when exchanging iCalendar objects. I'm sure there are 
others we can come close on. Another useful tactic might be to try to 
enumerate the _minimum_ functions needed based on use cases of "Joe User" 
and "Jane User" on different platforms and decide what elements are needed 
to accomplish those, rather than thinking about what elements are required 
to handle what currently exists in the various implementations. My view, as 
a user, is that even though there's a lot of function in the products out 
there, not all of that function is required for interoperability - perhaps 
there is a "lingua franca" for interoperability which will meet our 
simplification needs.

At 01:10 PM 8/28/04, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

>On Aug 26, 2004, at 12:22 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>>In an effort to get a handle on things, I've built this file (attached) 
>>to document the major elements of RCF2445/6/7 and CAP-13. It's in XML, 
>>because....
>
>Although Tim's reasons for xml make sense, naturally the first thing I did 
>was convert it to an HTML table.  So I thought I'd share that with anyone 
>who hasn't actually tried to read the file yet...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanks, Tim.  -- Nathaniel

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.