Re: Interpretation of VALARM TRIGGERs in recurring components

[John Stracke <francis@xxxxxxxx>]

Graham Gilmore wrote:

> I'm wondering what the
> interpretation of this would be in the case of a VEVENT or VTODO that
> has a recurrence rule:

I think the only interpretation that meshes with 2445 is (a), a single
alarm at a given time that has nothing to do with the recurrence.  Your
(c) (infer a duration given a date-time) is counter to the text ("The
'TRIGGER' property value type can alternatively be set to an absolute
calendar date and time of day value") in two ways.  First, the text says
"an", which implies exactly one.  Second, the text says "absolute", which
is counter to your inferred-duration approach.

Your (b) (one alarm per instance, but all at the same time) is, as you
say, not workable.

Granted, an absolute-time alarm in a recurring event is *strange*; but
it's not utterly useless.  Maybe I've got a procedural alarm that needs to
go off sometime before the first email alarm, but doesn't need to go off
on every one.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Illiterate? Write today for free help!       |
|francis@xxxxxxxx|                                             |
\==============================================================/