Re: Question for list

[Doug Royer <Doug.Royer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Doug:
> 
> This is the problem. Thanks for clarifying this.
> 
> iTIP deals with group scheduled events and to-dos. As you correctly pointed
> out, if you are are using iTIP to specify such a group scheduled PUBLISH
> event, you MUST have the ORGANIZER property.
>
> However, in my note, I was referring to an "appointment", not a "meeting".

I disagree. I do not see any reason that you can not use iTIP
to send an appointment to another person. With only one ATTENDEE
and the ORGANIZER not attending. iTIP example:

	BEGIN:VEVENT
	METHOD:PUBLISH
	...
	ORGANIZER: your boss
	ATTENDEE: you
	SUMMARY: cover the phone line for me - I am going on vacation.
	DTSTART:...
	DTEND:...
	...
	END:VEVENT

One attendee - no meeting - an appointment - not a group scheduled event.
No reply needed or wanted - so sent as a PUBLISH.

> This would be for a non-group scheduled event. There would be no ORGANIZER,
> per se. When I copy this event to my clipboard, I would not expect to see an
> ORGANIZER property on it. After all, this type of event doesn't conform to
> iTIP. After all, the iTIP spec doesn't address non-group scheduled events.

I don't know of any place in iCal or iIIP where this is specified.

If you copy 'what' from your clipboard. Someone made the appointment?
Someone knows what this means - yourself as both the ORGANIZER
and the only ATTENDEE?

> If I want to archive these "appointments" from my calendar, SHOULD we be
> specifying them without an ORGANIZER? I think so.

How you archive them is out of scope for iCalendar, iTIP, iMIP, and CAP.

> And SHOULD we be
> specifying a METHOD. Hhmm. Isn't PUBLISH the correct method? I think os.

How you archive them is out of scope for iCalendar, iTIP, iMIP, and CAP.

> In this case, we have an event that doesn't conform to iTIP, but correctly
> has a PUBLISH method and no ORGANIZER.

I can see that you do not want ORGANIZER when archiving.
I still do not see that we need to change or extend iTIP.
And I still see it as out of scope.

-Doug