Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (Alarms/SEQUENCE)

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Mark blasted away on 11/10/2003 03:09:48 PM:
> > What does that have to do with the topic or the email asked or
> answered?
> > Nothing at all.
> >
> > Do you even follow the topics before posting?
> 
> Normally I would not respond to this kind of trolling but Ill give you
> the benefit of the doubt and chalk this up to ignorance rather than
> malice.  Nathaniel wrote:
> 
> Alarms/SEQUENCE -- I remain confused: Can there be two identical
> objects in the same calendar? If not, we should clearly say so.
> 
> to which Doug replied:
> 
> You can and iCAL has no such restriction on any component including
> VALARMs.
> 
> to which I pointed out that he was incorrect.  iCalendar has at least
> 5 places where it says duplicates are to be treated as a single
> instance.  I then pointed out that CAP also has text to this effect.
>  So my reply was on topic just like the last time you said it wasnt.

Bull, a valarm is not the same thing as a vevent instance,
and criplling the comments posted to imply they mean instances 
of a vevent is just more trolling.

And you still refues to stick to the point. How do you fix
one?