[Design] 0.7 Chandler scheduling phasing proposal

[Brian Moseley]

On 2/13/06, Jeffrey Harris <jeffrey at osafoundation.org> wrote:

> This suggests to me that this requirement is asking Cosmo to give us two
> read-only tickets, one for calendar data, one for freebusy, but only one
> read-write ticket that applies to both of these.  I don't know if Cosmo
> supports that (Brian?).

it depends on how freebusy data is stored. if it's a separate resource
inside a caldav calendar collection, then it could be ticketed
separately of the enclosing calendar collection. if you're planning to
use the caldav freebusy report, then there's no "sub-resource" to
ticket independently of the calendar collection.

to be honest, i haven't read the freebusy section of the caldav spec
in enough detail to understand if it expects clients to stick
VFREEBUSY components into calendar collections, expects servers to
calculate freebusy time by examining all the events in the calendar,
or allows some combination of both, so i can't speak with much
authority yet on how cosmo will eventually implement freebusy support.