Re: [Jcardcal] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09: (with COMMENT)

[Philipp Kewisch <[e-mail]>]

On 3/24/14, 10:42 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> What it's saying is that jCal is
>> designed to accommodate extensions to iCalendar, without requiring
>> changes to jCal.  It's not talking about changes that might show up in
>> a new major iCalendar version... just changes that use the normal
>> iCalendar extension mechanisms.
> Yep. My comment is really that it'd be better to say
> what to avoid doing in any future such RFCs instead of
> just saying "You're not allowed to be naughty." But
> just a comment, if you think its fine that's ok too.
>
>
I personally think its fine, the introduction to that list says its
merely a design consideration, i.e "we designed jCal so that extensions
to iCalendar won't require changes to this document". There is nothing
in particular to avoid in an extension to iCalendar, as long as the
extension has backwards compatibility to iCalendar in mind, which will
certainly be the case.

Thank you for the comment though, if this weren't a design consideration
I'd agree that we could change the wording and make it more clear what
needs to be done.

Philipp