Re: Relative URI in 2445 ?

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

John replied on 02/12/2003 12:42:56 PM:
> As a rule of thumb, I would say that relative URLs are highly unlikely
> to work in most iCalendar scenarios.  

I guess this also depends on how you
contruct the iCalendar data stream.  

If you constructed the file as a multipart/related
MIME message then you could include both the iCalendar object and the referenced
ATTACHment data (using CID: URIs).  Separating the iCalendar entry
from the ATTACHment data is frought with peril; including it in the same
data stream is much much safer.

> If you have a scenario where it's useful to store
iCalendar in a local 
> file (despite the performance problems of searching such a store),
I'd 
> say you need to assume that URLs to anything outside the iCalendar
store 
> will break when you send the iCalendar to anybody else.

Not 100% true.  See above.

Separating entry from ATTACHment is
a receipe for peril when you start to try and preserve linkages.

Then again I guess you could make the
ATTACHment inline (shudder, did I actually say that!?!?!) but doing so
for a, say, big ZIP or MPEG is NOT something that inline ATTACHments were
created for.  It is legal but its against the intent of inlines...
 This just goes to show you that there are at least 2 alternatives
that help prevent linkage breaks.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                  
             INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration            
    Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                
        FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...