[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


Mark noted on 11/10/2003 08:46:22 PM:
> 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.

Actually the prohibition is on concurrent repeat instances which are actually identified using both UID and RECURRENCE-ID but in a nutshell this is basically it.

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

Yep. (See, Mark and I dont always disagree.)

Lets not forget that CAP currently has a prohibition on creating duplicate BOOKED instances (CAP-12-e, p19):

   There MUST NOT BE more than one "BOOKED" state object in a calendar
  for the same "UID".

The SUBJECT is Alarms/SEQUENCE ???

No one disputes that VEVENTS must have a unique ID.

--

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug@xxxxxxxxx                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                              |   Cell: (208)520-4044

We Do Standards - You Need Standards

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature