Subject: Re: Question for list

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 22:22:31 -0400

Doug:
Your arguments are presuming support for CAP. This seems circular. I don't 
plan on supporting CAP, but I am planning on supporting the published C&S 
standards, iCalendar, iTIP and iMIP. 
They are independent of CAP. So, you can't argue for us to use CAP for 
these other things. I can just as easily just use iCalendar.
-- Frank

---

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 21:36:26 -0400

Just a reminder- it is not at all inconceivable that the CAP work 
will lead to changes in iCalendar.  I'm not saying it necessarily 
will, but it's important to bear in mind that even those choosing not 
to pursue CAP may see the CAP work impact iCalendar down the road.

-Bob

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:46:53 -0700

> standards, iCalendar, iTIP and iMIP.

'non-scheduling iTIP' - is not on the WG charter. Currently we
are defining ways to book non-scheduling items in a CS. 

> They are independent of CAP. So, you can't argue for us to use CAP for these
> other things. I can just as easily just use iCalendar.

I can argue for CAP :-)

use CAP ;-)

CAP in in process - if the new METHOD values can be used for other
things great - but PLEASE lets not invent another way to represent
the same thing!

-Doug

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:48:02 -0700

> to pursue CAP may see the CAP work impact iCalendar down the road.

Yes. And booking as we call it, it precisely what Bruce and Frank
seem to want. 

-Doug