AD review issue #4: Supporting both VTODO and VEVENT in the same
iCalendar stream (was: Re: [Ietf-calsify] Re: AD review on 2445bis)
lisa at osafoundation.org
Mon Jun 16 09:01:07 PDT 2008
On Jun 16, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Aki Niemi wrote:
> ma, 2008-06-16 kello 10:03 +0300, ext Aki Niemi kirjoitti:
>>> Section 3.6.2: VTODO. Is it now more common for VTODOs to appear in
>>> the same iCalendar document as VEVENTS? A few years ago that was
>>> the case. Can we now state that user agents SHOULD be able to
>>> VTODOs as well as VEVENTS?
> Isn't this the implicit assumption already? Namely that if an
> implementation is conforming to the specification, it must supports
> of the defined components therein?
I should add that currently VTODO and VJOURNAL are treated exactly the
same way as far as requirements are concerned, even though real-world
use of VTODO is much greater than for VJOURNAL and I'm not even sure
we can explain how people use VJOURNAL. So it seems odd that they're
both assumed to be required but one is really used and the other is
not. That kind of thing may lead casual implementors to just ignore
the implicit requirement, and lump VTODO in with VJOURNAL as something
they don't really want to figure out how to support.
Again, I can't think of any new requirement that would be a definite
good thing, but we could easily write an implementation note that
mentions that VTODOs are increasingly seen in exported ICS files and
even in iTIP messages and that VEVENTS are ubiquitous.
More information about the Ietf-calsify