Subject: [Ietf-calsify] (no subject)

From: TimHare at comcast.net ([email-masked])
Date: Tue Oct 12 05:10:22 2004

Cameron Stillion wrote, in part:

"... This is not to say we should paint ourselves into a corner in the most
fundamental ways, but it does mean we need to start small, get something
basic that we all can agree to, grow some real interoperability, and
THEN we can start tinkering with how to extend the standard to the
zillion other applications and possibilities. "

I heartily agree with this - and in thinking about it, I think my 
discussions on retaining simple recurrence rules might also need to fall by 
the wayside. Exchanging only single VEVENTs would definitely bring about 
interoperability between diverse implementations, which is one thing that 
is desperately needed, and has been for at least a decade - I remember 
discussing this stuff at SHARE (http://www.share.org) in the early 1990's.

I think our focus needs to narrow to: simplify to the point that 
individuals and organizations can begin to schedule with each other, no 
matter what platform they're using.   While it may seem counter-intuitive, 
I believe that this will benefit those who are vendors - I know what a boon 
it would be if my employer could schedule meetings with the many 
contractors and consultants we use. We have limited capability in that area 
now - if they have Outlook/Exchange and we have Notes, for example, there's 
some interoperability - but if a small contractor uses something like Yahoo 
for his calendaring, we may be out of luck (I say "may be" because I 
haven't researched it).

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.

---

From: Doug at Royer.com (Doug Royer)
Date: Tue Oct 12 06:21:30 2004

[email-masked] wrote:

> discussions on retaining simple recurrence rules might also need to 
> fall by the wayside. Exchanging only single VEVENTs would definitely 
> bring about interoperability between diverse implementations, which is 
> one thing that is desperately needed, and has been for at least a 
> decade - I remember discussing this stuff at SHARE 
> (http://www.share.org) in the early 1990's. 

What do you mean by "single VEVENT"?
Do you mean that we need to start with VEVENTs?

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email-masked]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   | Fax:    (866)594-8574
                               | Cell:   (208)520-4044

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4696 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-calsify/attachments/20041012/ea6961dc/smime-0001.bin

---

From: Doug at Royer.com (Doug Royer)
Date: Tue Oct 12 06:47:39 2004

What does everyone think?

    A) Disallow all RRULEs  in a VEVENT?

    B) Allow only a simplified RRULE in  a VEVENT?

    C) Allow only one RRULE (simple or not) per VEVENT?

    D) Allow EXRULE ?

    E) Allow EXDATE?

    F) Allow RDATE?

Notes from my searching calendaring tools:

    1) All implementations can do simple non-repeating VEVENTs.
         This also includes non iCAL calendaring tools.

    2) All iCAL implementations that I can find can do:
             Daily, Weekly, Monthly

    3) Many allow:
             Yearly

    4) Many allow:
             Nth day of month.

    5)  Of the ones that allow recurring rules, all that I can find allow
           one or more of the recurring instances to be removed.

    6) Of (5) only one does it without EXDATE. And that implementation
         can not export its entries in way that almost all other 
implementations
         can import. It uses a list of objects that have to be recreated 
in order.

-- 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4696 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-calsify/attachments/20041012/813a5368/smime.bin

---

From: TimHare at comcast.net ([email-masked])
Date: Tue Oct 12 18:34:50 2004

Sorry - I was unclear. What I meant to say was, for iCal-Basic or whatever 
we're calling it, that a set of VEVENTs instead of using RRULEs would work 
for me, if it means that interoperability comes sooner.  It sacrifices the 
"every week forever" kind of event, but if my client and/or server can 
compute and send "every week until my projected retirement date" that's 
sufficient :-)

At 09:21 AM 10/12/04, Doug Royer wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-calsify mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify

Tim Hare