collection

2.2. 2000-2004

  • Work on CAP — stopped

  • Interoperability testing — stopped

  • Work on iCalendar, iTIP and iMIP — stopped

  • IETF CALSCH working group — stopped

  • The draft RFCs were not ready

    • Too ambiguous

    • Too complex

    • Untested

  • Calendaring and Scheduling Vendors continued to use the RFCs as they could

  • Where the RFCs were inadequate vendors were forced to develop workarounds or unique extensions

  • Work on follow-on or related specifications was hampered by being “built on sand”

  • Vendors — and users — became more and more frustrated by the lack of movement in calendaring standards and interoperability

  • Interoperability between calendaring systems was mostly still a dream

  • Somewhere around 2004 things started to move again

  • Some vendors began moving towards alternatives to the base RFCs

  • Interoperability seemed less important than progressing products

  • Work was begun on CalDAV as a prospective standard for a calendar access protocol, recognizing that CAP was a dead end