Re: RELATED-TO vs CHILD/PARENT

["John Stracke" <jstracke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>(1) Bruce wants to rename PARENT/CHILD to RELATED-TO just like
>    in iCalendar. I don't see a problem with that.

This sounds like a good idea, *provided* we can make sure we don't 
conflict with what iCalendar means by RELATED-TO.  RELATED-TO on VAGENDAs 
is undefined (since they're not in 2445); but, on VEVENTs and other 
components defined in 2445, it already has semantics of its own:

   Changes to a calendar component referenced by this property can have
   an implicit impact on the related calendar component. For example, if
   a group event changes its start or end date or time, then the
   related, dependent events will need to have their start and end dates
   changed in a corresponding way. Similarly, if a PARENT calendar
   component is canceled or deleted, then there is an implied impact to
   the related CHILD calendar components.

So, the only components that can safely use RELATED-TO as an arbitrary 
heirarchy mechanism are those defined in CAP; we can't, for example, 
specify that a VEVENT has a RELATED-TO:RELTYPE=PARENT pointing to the 
containing VAGENDA.

/===========================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer         |
|jstracke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  |Incentive Systems, Inc.    |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.    |
|===========================================================|
|"What we have here is a failure to assimilate." --Cool Hand|
|Locutius                                                   |
\===========================================================/