"Michael W. Condry" wrote:
At 02:45 AM 7/3/2001 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
I do like the 'extend [..] the iCAP protocol without being obliged to
retain any level of compatibility with the current iCAP proposal.'
Fine, since iCAP's just an individual draft -- but isn't extending
without being compatible something only Microsoft is generally
regarded as being capable of doing?
That is not the intent. The intent is that the IETF process
will be followed with regard to iCAP (not some other organization's
process).
Not ECMA's, for example?
Brian