[Ietf-calsify] PERIOD types

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

On Tuesday 12 April 2005 01:15, Doug Royer wrote:
> Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > But that's usually not what users would exists [expect?]. If I have an
> > event
> >
>  > at 13:00  and it lasts 1 day, I expect it to end on 13:00 on the next
>
> day,
>
>  > no matter if the night is one hour shorter or longer as usual.
>
> Then the Organizer CUA is free to do the math that way, as long as what
> it sends out is not open to interpretation at least two different ways.

But in that case you loose the meta-information that the event is supposed to 
last one day. It's the same problem as with removing RRULEs. Sure, the 
resulting events will look the same, but you loose the meta-information of 
what the organizer actually intended. And that's not what I call 
interoperability.

As I already said, I see the purpose of a standard to clearly define how 
things are supposed to be handled in all cases. So let's clearly state what 
1D means, and all standards-compliant applications will then understand it 
the same way.

> > Even if the "big two" (as you put it) don't think like that, I would say
> > that's a bug in their implementation.
>
> What's the point of CALSIFY?

To force the mistakes of a few implementations on all others?

Reinhold



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, Vienna University of Technology, Austria
email: reinhold at kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial and Actuarial Mathematics, TU Wien, http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/
 * K Desktop Environment, http://www.kde.org, KOrganizer / KPilot maintainer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-calsify/attachments/20050412/c8052f20/attachment.bin