[Ietf-calsify] 3.3.10. Recurrence Rule - typo or ambiguity?

[Mike Samuel]

Doesn't
  "Furthermore, the BYDAY rule part
      MUST NOT be specified with a numeric value with the FREQ rule part
      set to YEARLY when the BYWEEKNO rule part is specified"
conflict with
  "The
      numeric value in a BYDAY rule part with the FREQ rule part set to
      YEARLY ...
      when the BYWEEKNO or BYMONTH rule parts are present."
?

Other than that, the original wording makes more sense to me.  It's
saying that numeric BYDAY's are treated as weeks within the year when
you've already specified a week within the month or you're filtering
by month.

It would be nice if it specified what BYDAY meant where FREQ=YEARLY
and none of (BYMONTH,BYWEEKNO,BYYEARDAY are present, so I would prefer
the last line read

  "when the BYMONTH rule part is not present".

Specifically, I still don't see
  RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1MO
fully specified.

mike



On 11/07/07, Andrew N Dowden <andrew_dowden at softdesign.net.nz> wrote:
> 3.3.10.  Recurrence Rule
>
>           .. The
>       numeric value in a BYDAY rule part with the FREQ rule part set to
>       YEARLY corresponds to an offset within the month when the BYMONTH
>       rule part is present, and corresponds to an offset within the year
>       when the BYWEEKNO or BYMONTH rule parts are present.
>
> Should the last line read?:
>
>      .. BYWEEKNO or BYMONTHDAY rule parts ..
> or
>     .. BYWEEKNO or BYYEARDAY rule parts ..
>
> Alternatively, does this make sense as is?
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
>
>   SoftDesign Group
>   Dowden Software Associates
>   P O Box 31 132, Lower Hutt 5040, NEW ZEALAND
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-calsify mailing list
> Ietf-calsify at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify
>