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

[Helge Hess]

On 11. Feb 2005, at 19:57 Uhr, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> 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.

If this is a real world problem (say: more than one, non-MS 
implementation actively uses this construct), we obviously need some 
solution to this (eg a seperate field for one or the other).

Greets,
   Helge
-- 
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org