Subject: Re: iTIP: Who sent that message?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:50:06 -0400

>Shouldn't the same be said of unrecognized parameters?
Did you mean "parameter" or "property". I am confused. I argued against a 
parameter and pro a property.

>(I'm not opposing using a property, mind you; I like the argument
>that ATT-COUNTER is parallel to ORGANIZER.)
Great! Makes two of us.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:46:17 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> Did you mean "parameter" or "property".

I meant "parameter".  You said that an iCalendar implementation
that didn't recognize a property should remain silent.  I'm
asking whether an iCalendar implementation that doesn't recognize
a parameter should remain silent.

I'm concerned because, if not, then it becomes difficult to
extend a property definition over time.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed by|
[email-masked]|its lack of scalability. --John Kirch        |
\==============================================================/