[Ietf-calsify] 3.3.10. Recurrence Rule - typo or ambiguity?
bernard.desruisseaux at oracle.com
Wed Jul 11 19:07:59 PDT 2007
Mike Samuel wrote:
> "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
> 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".
As I mentionned in my last mail, I had missed the "not".
Furthermore, there is no need to mention BYWEEKNO here
since the other statement forbids its use in this context.
BTW, I don't consider issue 11 fully closed. During the
last Jabber session we didn't go through all of Nigel's
> Specifically, I still don't see
> fully specified.
> 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
> Ietf-calsify mailing list
> Ietf-calsify at osafoundation.org
More information about the Ietf-calsify