Hi Keith,
--On September 10, 2010 12:43:53 PM -0400 Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
Fair enough. We can adjust e.g. Section 3.7 that talks about only X-
extensions to also refer to any new iCalendar data objects. The basic
premise being that new iCalendar data object names map directly to an
XML element name. After each table in the previous sections we can add a
reference to section 3.7 with a statement that that is how new items
will be handled.
That would help. But why do you need specific rules for any of the
iCalendar data object names? I can understand one or two exceptional
cases, but if the mapping you have is truly adaptable, it shouldn't need
many of those rules.
OK, I'll discuss with my fellow authors to see what we can do to better
clarify our intent. Maybe we actually state the naming/mapping rules at the
very start of section 3 as the "fundamental" set of rules, but we still
keep the tables in there as a useful reference back to the iCalendar spec.
--
Cyrus Daboo
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf