[Ietf-calsify] Re: What's wrong with more radical simplification?

[Reinhold Kainhofer]

On Friday 11 February 2005 19:41, Helge Hess wrote:
> > And if the gui supports recurrence rules, you'd manually
> > need to check each of the dates in the RDATE if it is an additional
> > exception
> > to the RRULE...
>
> No. Why is the rrule still require if you have all individual instances
> anyway? Its required to support the editor panel in the calendering
> client. If it supports the rrule, it can show proper UI for changing
> the cycle.

Yes, but the problem is that the list of RDATEs is not only the result from 
the RRULE, but it might also contain additional dates, which are already in 
the "old" RDATE list according to rfc2445. 

E.g. if a file contains:
DTSTART:20050109T070000Z
RRULE:FREQ=WEEKLY;BYDAY=SU;COUNT=2
RDATE;VALUE=DATE:20050109,20050116,20050216

Then the recurrence rule is every sunday, but the rdate list also contains an 
additional occurrence on Feb 16. So one in the GUI one has to check each of 
the dates in RDATE if it was generated by the RRULE, or if it is an 
additional occurrence. Such additional occurrences would need to be edited 
differently (like exception dates).

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/20050211/6d6c7fd5/attachment.bin