Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Section 4.3.10 Recurrence Rule: x-name rule part?

From: bernard.desruisseaux at oracle.com (Bernard Desruisseaux)
Date: Thu Oct 12 12:24:11 2006

In section 4.3.10 Recurrence Rule of RFC 2445 it says:

 > Formal Definition: The value type is defined by the following
 > notation:
 >
 >   recur      = "FREQ"=freq *(
 >
 >              [...]
 >
 >              ( ";" x-name "=" text )
 >              )

which implies that a RECUR value (e.g., the value of a RRULE or an
EXRULE) can specify a "x-name" rule part with a "text" value.

For some reason I would have expected "x-name" rule part to have a
"paramtext" value and not "text" value.

But more importantly, I don't understand why we should allow "x-name"
rule parts. IMHO, it should be sufficient to have the ability to specify
an "xparam" on properties of RECUR value type (e.g., RRULE and EXRULE).

Instead of:
   RRULE:RRULE:FREQ=DAILY;COUNT=10;X-FOO-BAR=42
one could do:
   RRULE;X-FOO-BAR=42:RRULE:FREQ=DAILY;COUNT=10

I hereby propose to remove "x-name" from the "recur" rule part definition.

Cheers,
Bernard

---

From: TimHare at comcast.net (Tim Hare)
Date: Thu Oct 12 17:28:23 2006

Again, I am not a calendar software implementer (any more) but I think
recurrence rules are one place where X-anything can be a big problem. I do
understand that some implementer somewhere may have already coded
X-BYPRIMENUMBERINTERVALS or something, so that may be an argument for
maintaining the rule part, but if we do retain it, I propose language be
added similar to the following:

"x-name" rule parts are allowed to provide for experimentation and
implementation-specific uses, however because of interoperability concerns
"x-name" rule parts MUST NOT change the interpretation of recurrence rules
in any way and MUST NOT contribute to creating the set of instances when the
recurrence rule is expanded.

All of that said, I agree with removing the rule-part entirely.

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bernard
Desruisseaux
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:23 PM
To: Calsify WG
Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Section 4.3.10 Recurrence Rule: x-name rule part?

In section 4.3.10 Recurrence Rule of RFC 2445 it says:

 > Formal Definition: The value type is defined by the following  >

But more importantly, I don't understand why we should allow "x-name"
rule parts. IMHO, it should be sufficient to have the ability to specify an
"xparam" on properties of RECUR value type (e.g., RRULE and EXRULE).

Instead of:

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