Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (Alarms/SEQUENCE)

[Mark Smith <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"G. Barnes" wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > I have yet to hear any good justification for allowing "identical but
> > separate" VALARMs that match any practical view of things.  Despite Dougs
> > and Marks claim, the only reason to have SEQUENCE (or ALARMID) on VALARMs
> > is for this rare usage case that currently noone actually has nor models
> > anyones actual behaviour or needs.  Id like to apply KISS to this and move
> > CAP along...  (Just like we disallow multiple copies of the same booked
> > entry, the same should go for alarms).

ICAL disallows two identical vevents because the uid distinguishes
them. And ICAL defines if they have the same uid, then they are the same
object in a possible different state or time.

ICAL does not disallow vevents that would be identical except for the 
unique identifier.


> 2) As for what's the use of duplicate alarms, what if I want to send
> myself 20 e-mail messages to make sure I get the hint?  Or have 5 windows
> opening with blinking text?  Who are we to say what a user might think is
> useful?

Again the only thing I see is the fix the oops alarms which I have
done more than once.