On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 14:22 -0400, Suman Manjunath wrote: > On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 11:37 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 15:21 +0200, Butrus Damaskus wrote: > > > New version of iCalendar was accepted as RFC 5545 (see eg. > > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545.txt). Does this mean something > > > for evolution development? :-o > > > > Looks like it's basically just errata from RFC 2445 (see page 166). I'm > > sure the corrections can be implemented or verified pretty easily. The > > burden may fall on the Free Association project as much as if not more > > so than on us. > > Wondering why it is an entirely new RFC for a bunch (11 to be precise) > of errata. It could easily have been RFC 2445 spec 2 or something > similar. That's the standard process for updating RFCs. You'll notice that it's been done the same way for RFC822 -> 2822 and for DAV RFC2518 -> 4918, etc. The last two digits of the original RFC number are maintained for mnemonic reasons during the process, too. Cheers, Andrew. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://andrew.mcmillan.net.nz/ Porirua, New Zealand Twitter: _karora Phone: +64(272)DEBIAN Necessity is the mother of documentation ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part