Subject: [Ietf-calsify] VTODO questions

From: camerost at exchange.microsoft.com (Cameron Stillion)
Date: Thu May 12 17:01:27 2005

So far, the extent of VTODO "simplification" and "clarification" for the
purposes of interoperability have amounted to this:

Deprecation.

Tasks as a datatype, IMHO, belong in a separate specification - when and
if there is adequate interest in such a standard. Muddying the waters
with tasks is one of the things that has likely kept iCal from becoming
a standard for the past few years.

(...think of it as including your pet political hack for a kickback in
the next tax cut bill...)

Cameron

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 11:59 AM
To: Calsify
Subject: [Ietf-calsify] VTODO questions

I have some questions about VTODO interoperability that I was hoping
somebody on the calsify list could help me answer.  We are currently
trying to implement todos into our server with the goal of being as
interoperable as possible with other calendar servers/clients.  I know
RFC 2445 has a lot of shortfalls regarding VTODOs, but we're willing to
live with some of these shortcomings if it increases our
interoperability.  At this point though, I am having difficulty
determining what clients and servers we would be able to interoperate
with.

Can anyone point me at some calendar clients and servers that support
assigning and responding to VTODOs with iMIP? 

Has calsify or any other group tried to quantify the level of
interoperability that exists with VTODOs?  Are there any
interoperability test reports for this?

Is calsify looking at what to do about VTODOs, or are VTODOs used so
little right now that standardization of these is considered a low
priority?  

Thanks,

Chris Bryant

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