[Ietf-calsify] Issue 13, 24, 25: Generation of the recurrence set
lear at cisco.com
Mon Oct 23 06:04:54 PDT 2006
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Montag, 23. Oktober 2006 11:14 schrieb Mike Higginbottom:
>> Have we defined what actions are to be taken when implementations
>> encounter undefined/deprecated content? I guess a blanket statement along
>> the lines of 'ignore any undefined/illegal content' would be the best
> This means we break backwards compatibility with RFC 2445, when multiple
> RRULEs or RRULEs that don't match the DTSTART are encountered. For RRULEs
> with an UNTIL or not limitation at all, the current RFC was quite
> uncontroversial, only the COUNT lead to problems.
Right. The problem here is that we cannot dictate what the right answer
is for code that is already written :-( but we can say, "Look, don't
generate rules that we know will be interpreted in different ways."
More information about the Ietf-calsify