[Ietf-calsify] summary of issues discussed in the jabber session

[Cyrus Daboo]

Hi Mike,

--On December 13, 2006 10:54:49 AM -0500 Mike Douglass <douglm at rpi.edu> 
wrote:

> The arguments for removal of these options seem to be based on nobody
> using them - however there don't seem to be many places where they are
> made available. This holds true for some of the other simplification
> suggestions.
>
> That is, until applications make these options available we cannot tell
> how much they would be used.
>
> Removal of these options just guarantees icalendar data will never be
> used in certain areas

But perhaps the application developers choose not to make them available 
precisely because their own surveys/requirements from users did not show 
any demand. Its not necessarily because the developers were "too lazy" to 
implement.

Just from a personal standpoint I can tell you that I have never had cause 
to create an hourly, minutely or secondly event even though the client I 
use allows that via UI. Though I have used the VALARM repeat capability to 
have alarms trigger at five minute intervals leading up to the start of an 
event. That's why I would like to know why Reinhold choose to use VEVENTs. 
My feeling is that you can use VALARM for those cases and if you want to 
see something on the calendar, then the client can quite easily display the 
VALARM "instances" using an appropriate widget in the UI.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo