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

Doug quiped on 09/04/2003 02:01:01 PM:
> So you are proposing we change the text to:
> 
>    "we need to answer the discrepancy between Purpose and
>    Description."
> 
> No.

Correct: No.  Im not sure if I should propose getting a co-editor or not 
since you seem to have a knack for missing points.

I propose that the WG decide if the intent of the RECUR-ACCEPTED property 
is correctly defined as (A) "This property specifies if the endpoint 
supports recurring instances." (any kind of recurrence) or as (B) "This 
property specifies if the endpoint supports recurring rules." (RRULEs 
only)

I suggest (A) is correct and (B) is incorrect.  If we opt for (A) then 
Description needs to be changed to be:

   Description: Indicates if recurrence instances are supported. If FALSE
   then the endpoint can not process any kind of recurring rules.

If we opt for (B) then Description is ok and Purpose needs to be changed 
to:

   Purpose: This property specifies if the endpoint supports recurring
   rules.

No matter if we choose (A) or (B), the property is incomplete in that it 
is unable to convey the ability/inability for a CS to deal with RDATEs, 
EXRULEs and EXDATEs. 

As noted earlier, not all engines that support RRULEs support RDATEs and 
supporing RRULEs/RDATEs is orthogonal to supporting EXRULEs/EXDATEs.   As 
such CAP needs some way for this ability/inability to be conveyed clearly 
for each kind of recurrence/exclusion.  Depending on how we resolve 
(A)/(B) above, I can better propose how to fix the other bits.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email protected]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.