[Ietf-calsify] (no subject)

Helge Hess helge.hess at opengroupware.org
Wed Oct 13 04:15:13 PDT 2004

On Oct 13, 2004, at 8:12, <Veikko.Punkka at nokia.com> wrote:
> If you now start sending each occurence as a single VEVENT
> with some other thing to keep them related (not necessarily supported
> by current clients), how do you think that will make you reach 
> interoperability
> sooner?

The huge majority of available systems are not interoperable at all. 
Reducing complexity will make it much easier for those systems to 
implement iCal and to ensure interoperability at a certain level. This 
level might not be sufficient for you, but it will improve the 
situation for a lot of other users of scheduling software.

On the other side we should not break existing applications (you are 
certainly correct that some implementations probably support 100% of 
RRULE's). IMHO if we remove RRULE's from the core spec, we should _at 
the same time_ have an extension spec available which implements 
'traditional' RRULE's.

Besides that it would be _really_ useful to have a (maintained) chart 
which outlines what RRULE features are supported by what 
implementation. So far I have only seen pretty broad statements like "4 
of 5 implements X".

best regards,

More information about the Ietf-calsify mailing list