[Ietf-calsify] 3.3.10. Recurrence Rule - typo or ambiguity?
mikesamuel at gmail.com
Wed Jul 11 04:30:27 PDT 2007
"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"
numeric value in a BYDAY rule part with the FREQ rule part set to
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
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
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 ..
> .. 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
More information about the Ietf-calsify