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

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Mark noted on 11/10/2003 08:46:22 PM:
> > ICAL disallows two identical vevents because the uid distinguishes
> > them. And ICAL defines if they have the same uid, then they are the
> same
> > object in a possible different state or time.
> 
> Actually the prohibition is on concurrent repeat instances which are
> actually identified using both UID and RECURRENCE-ID but in a nutshell
> this is basically it.
> 
> > ICAL does not disallow vevents that would be identical except for
> the
> > unique identifier.
> 
> Yep.  (See, Mark and I dont always disagree.)
> 
> Lets not forget that CAP currently has a prohibition on creating
> duplicate BOOKED instances (CAP-12-e, p19):
> 
>    There MUST NOT BE more than one "BOOKED" state object in a calendar
>   for the same "UID".

Which is completely unrelated to the topic of should valarms
have a unique identifier. Whats your point?