Subject: Re: Question for list

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 22:18:23 -0400

Doug Royer wrote, in part:
>So far - I just hear "I don't want to". But I am sure there is a reason.
>I just do not see it yet.

The point was, why should we have to specify an Organizer for every 
instance. It makes no sense for an appointment. I am sure there will be 
other cases. In addition, many have repeated here in this mailing list 
that iCalendar is just a data dictionary for describing calendar 
information. 
Certainly, there are good reasons NOT to specify an ORGANIZER property on 
an appointment. There is no "organizer". It isn't a group meeting 
organized by anyone. It is just as arbitrary to require it for 
appointments. So your argument isn't any better.
Haven't heard anyone say it shouldn't be there for an iCalendar object 
conforming to iTIP. But if you are a new application of iCalendar, I can't 
fathom why we would even consider arbitrarily mandating it.
-- Frank

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:43:18 -0700

> that iCalendar is just a data dictionary for describing calendar

That is one of the primary reasons for CAP.

> Certainly, there are good reasons NOT to specify an ORGANIZER property on an
> appointment. There is no "organizer". It isn't a group meeting organized by
> anyone. It is just as arbitrary to require it for appointments. So your
> argument isn't any better.

True - but these discussions a year ago on the WG list yielded that
iTIP was for scheduling only.

> fathom why we would even consider arbitrarily mandating it.

Great! That's one of the things CAP does. It defines new methods
for booked appointments. I have no problem if the new methods are
usabale in other places than CAP. 

-Doug