Subject: iTIP & Repeat/DUE/Duration restrictions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 22:16:03 -0400

I hope these posting are not being lost in the overwhelming slience on the 
list the past couple of days. :^)

  Actually, while getting down and dirty with some vEvent or vToDo 
restriction tables I found what could be an oversight in our restriction 
tables.  In 3.2.2 REQUEST (and other 3.2.x and 3.4.x subsections) the restriction tables in part 
read:

    DTEND           0 or 1  if present DURATION MUST NOT be present
    DURATION        0 or 1  if present DTEND MUST NOT be present
and
    RDATE             0+
and
    RRULE             0+

  Now if you are the cautious type you may see what could be restriction 
table oddity: it is possible to have a vEvent / vToDo that has NO 
DTEND/DUE or DURATION value but does have an RDATE / RRULE.  If the first 
entry enver ends (at least for vEvents) then how can it repeat since the 
initial instance cannot complete?  One can assume that 'overlapping' 
entries are allowed depending on how you view repeating entries but I dont 
know of any C&S system that allows open ended entries that can potentially 
repeat infinitely (ie: RRULE w/no COUNT or UNTIL).

  Since we are looking at cleaning up iTIP (and in the interest of KISS) I 
would like to suggest that we ammend the tables to preclude an entry from 
repeating if it does NOT have a finite length or end/due date & time. Any 
disagreement?

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Mansour)
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 22:26:34 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> I hope these posting are not being lost in the overwhelming slience on
> the list the past couple of days. :^)

hey!  I'm reading it.

> restriction tables I found what could be an oversight in our
> restriction tables.  In 3.2.2 REQUEST (and other 3.2.x and 3.4.x
> subsections) the restriction tables in part read:
>
>   Now if you are the cautious type you may see what could be
> restriction table oddity: it is possible to have a vEvent / vToDo that
> has NO DTEND/DUE or DURATION value but does have an RDATE / RRULE.  If
> the first entry enver ends (at least for vEvents) then how can it
> repeat since the initial instance cannot complete?  One can assume
> that 'overlapping' entries are allowed depending on how you view
> repeating entries but I dont know of any C&S system that allows open
> ended entries that can potentially repeat infinitely (ie: RRULE w/no
> COUNT or UNTIL).
>
>   Since we are looking at cleaning up iTIP (and in the interest of
> KISS) I would like to suggest that we ammend the tables to preclude an
> entry from repeating if it does NOT have a finite length or end/due
> date & time.   Any disagreement?

Jeez, how do you dream this stuff up ?  :-)   Sounds reasonable though.
In fact, totally independent of iTIP, this sounds like a sanity check on
the makeup of a repeating component.  Is this something that should go
in iCalendar?

-Steve