Re: CAP-12-a: 8.30 RECUR-ACCEPTED

Doug wrote on 09/03/2003 06:06:22 PM:
> > I see that we have a Section 8.30 RECUR-ACCEPTED Property that defined 
as:
> > 
> >    Purpose: This property specifies if the endpoint supports recurring
> >   instances.
> > ...
> >    Description: Indicates if recurrence rules are supported.  If FALSE
> >   then the endpoint can not process any kind of recurring rules.
> > 
> > The Purpose text talks about general recurrence but the Description 
text 
> > talks about recurrence rules.  This is a disjoin since:
> > 
> > A) Recurrence also involves RDATEs/EXDATEs and not just RRULEs/EXRULEs 
and
> 
> 1) It does not say 'RRULE' or 'EXRULE'.

Correct.  The text under Description says "recurrence rules".  This implys 
RRULEs (iCalendar, Section 4.8.5.4 Recurrence Rule) and thus excludes 
EXRULES.  Im saying that this is a mistake.  Not every implementation will 
support both RRULEs and EXRULEs so the draft needs to be hip to this and 
not totally ignore both.

> 2) Do you have a suggestion as to what it should say?

First we need to answer the discrepancy between the Purpose and the 
Description.  Then we will have a better idea of what text to add.

In case you missed that point, the Purpose clearly says "supports 
recurring _instances_" and the Description says "recurrence _rules_ are 
supported".  These are NOT the same.  Recurring _instances_ include RDATEs 
or put another way, repeating instances of any kind.  Recurring _rules_ 
are just RRULEs and NOT RDATEs (or EXRULES or EXDATEs). 

Unless CAP is going to be indeterminate on the support of RDATEs, EXRULEs 
and EXDATEs then something needs to be changed. 

So the question to answer FIRST is "Does RECUR-ACCEPTED refer to all kinds 
of recurrence or just to recurrence grammars?"  From there we can move 
along to some better text.  I for one think that it implys all recurrence 
but Im sure others may have other ideas.  Untill we have concensus on the 
intent, any proposed text is a waste of time.

FYI: Not all implementations support RDATEs but do support RRULEs.  If I 
recall correctly, Outlook does/did not support RDATEs but they do support 
RRULEs (at least thats what I recall from some testing we did here or at a 
CalConnect.) so do not assume that every implementation supports every 
form of repeating instance.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email protected]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...