- From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:14:50 +0000 (GMT)
- To: David King <david.king@commnav.com>
- cc: RDF Calendar List <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>
> > Doesn't this mean that these incongruities need to be solved by the IETF > CALSCH working group first? Would that happen in the near future? If not, > would there be RDF-Calendar recurrence rules that are ever-so-slightly > different from RFC2445 recurrence rules? I think that as long as we can map between them there should be no problem, and it's up to both groups to make sure they are consistent. We should use this opportunity to explore different options for expressing recurrrance, and other aspects of the ietf icalendar model. Recurrence is particularly interesting since it could perhaps be expressed as rules which are better expressed not in RDF/XML syntax. cheers libby
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 10:16:19 UTC