Subject: [calsify] draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-23

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:44:48 -0500

A few editorial nits:

4.3.2.1, item 2, applying skip, item 1:  I suggest adding a comma 
between "given year" and "increment it" as I think it makes

4.4.2: "Specifies how this property..." -> "Specifies how the calendar 
object..."

         Also, is there a particular reason the busy-unavailable and 
busy-tentative values from 5545 have been excluded?

Can I assume that the reason that a property that could be represented 
as an array of items (e.g. roles) is instead represented as an object 
with key=true items is that arrays can't be patched but items CAN be 
removed from an object with a patch setting key=false?  Whether this is 
the case or not, should this design decision be discussed somewhere?

-- 
Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
Fastmail US LLC

---

From: "Neil Jenkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:58:07 +1100

> 4.4.2: "Specifies how this property..." -> "Specifies how the calendar 

Thanks, I've made these changes.

> Also, is there a particular reason the busy-unavailable and busy-tentative values from 5545 have been excluded?

Yes, because these are only relevant in the FREEBUSY type, which JSCalendar does not attempt to represent (like it does not represent VJOURNAL).

> removed from an object with a patch setting key=false?

It's key == `null` to remove, but yes this is the reason behind it.

Cheers,
Neil.