[GroupDAV] GroupDAV vs. CalDAV

[Helge Hess]

On 10.07.2007, at 12:21, Julian Reschke wrote:
> the *age* doesn't matter in itself. But right now the reader gets  
> the impression that it's not maintained.
>
> So, if it's stable, why is it still called "draft"?

It is not stable, there are some loose ends and you are right that it  
isn't actively maintained :-) I've presented some thoughts on how we  
might want to continue in my mail.

In fact I'm not even sure whether GroupDAV should ever leave the  
draft state. I guess I want it to be implementer driven, eg someone  
can convince the given (small) set of implementers of a certain  
feature / way and we just release a new draft.
[obviously keeping compat in mind]

BTW: I do think that even the 2003 GroupDAV draft has its use. After  
all there _are_ several implementations in active development.
And thats the basic idea :-)

> Speaking of which, were you considering to submit it to the IETF?

No. Do you think that this would make sense? We already have CalDAV  
as the 'proper', 'well defined' RFC?

The approach I envisioned compares more to XML-RPC than to SOAP :-)  
And the differences between GroupDAV and CalDAV should be quite  
similiar.

Greets,
   Helge
-- 
Helge Hess
http://www.helgehess.eu/