RE: SKICal CONTROL

["Shannon J. Clark" <shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Should the standard state exactly which parameters can be attached to which
properties?

If we don't I suspect we will see some serious interoperability issues -
especially since these will be cases of "standard" parameters being used in
various places - vs. the less serious case of X-* parameters or properties
which each system should be written to ignore if it doesn't understand.

So, should we state somewhere which parameters can optionally be used by
which properties?

Shannon

Shannon J. Clark
CEO - JigZaw, Inc
1.800.4.JIGZAW (454.4929)
shannon@xxxxxxxxxx
www.jigzaw.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 12:15 PM
To: John Stracke
Cc: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: SKICal CONTROL



John replied:
> Isn't ROLE just for ATTENDEEs? The CONTROL might not be an
> ATTENDEE.

Actually its not restricted to ATTENDEEs.  We defined it separately from the
ATTENDEE definition and as such there is nothing precluding another property
from also having it.  The actual definition from 2445 says:

4.2.16 Participation Role

  Parameter Name: ROLE

  Purpose: To specify the participation role for the calendar user
  specified by the property.

It does not say "specified by the ATTENDEE property value" or any variant of
that.  It is a property parameter that, until now, has not been needed or
logical for other properties besides ATTENDEE.  It does make sense for
CONTROL and for SKiCAL it may also make sense to have new values for some
ATTENDEEs (but thats up to SKiCAL to define clearly).

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...