Although I agree, and will stipulate, that:
-- Multiple syntaxes are nearly always a bad idea
and
-- iCal is badly broken (in fact, more broken than any of the cited
articles indicate)
We don't live in the best of all possible worlds. There is a demonstrable need
to continue to support iCal, and to have an interoperable XML format, until
something better comes along. While I would enthusiastically support and work
on such a better calendar format (I will resist the urge to add my list of
additional problems with iCal to the discussion), I think we have to cope with
current reality, in which there is a growing demand for XML calendar
interoperation.
In other words: iCal sucks but that's irrelevant. Multiple syntaxes suck, but
sometimes they're necessary. We've created a great big turd, and now we need
to periodically squirt perfume on it or it will only smell worse and worse over
time. -- Nathaniel
On Sep 10, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2010, at 06:09, Keith Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> If you have a beef with the iCalendar data model, feel free to try to come
>> up with a better one.
>
> Funny you should say that :-)
> http://fanf.livejournal.com/104586.html
>
> Tony.
> --
> f.anthony.n.finch <[email protected]> http://dotat.at/
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
