RECURRENCE-ID / instance reschedule (Was Re: DTSTART for recurrence instances)
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.calendar |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OFCC06672F.18FD2A7C-ON85256DF9.005E8BE5-85256DF9.0062FC6C@notesdev.ibm.com> |
Doug wrote on 12/10/2003 03:15:17 PM: > PLEASE - if you want to talk about the other RECURRENCE-ID issue - change > the subject line. How you derive RECURRENCE-ID from a given object with > EXPAND:TRUE and how it effects DTSTART is NOT the same as > if (or not) RECURRENCE-ID changes after a reschedule. It was already hammered at ad naseum and confirmed by the RFC authors that RECURRENCE-ID does not change on an instance reschedule. Please see http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg08662.html for confirmation of this. As such, can we please NOT even go down any discussion path that tries to reintroduce the concept of RECURRENCE-ID changing on a reschedule?!? The RECURRENCE-ID value should be the the DTSTART that the instance was originally created at as described in iCalendar Section 4.8.4.4: The date/time value is set to the time when the original recurrence instance would occur; meaning that if the intent is to change a Friday meeting to Thursday, the date/time is still set to the original Friday meeting. The use of EXPAND should be orthogonal to the discussion of calculating any instances RECURRENCE-ID. EXPAND is currently defined in CAP-12-e as: Purpose: This property is to notify the CS if it should or should not expand any component with recurrence rules into multiple instances in a query reply. so it is defined as a way for the CUA to tell the CS how to handle bundling results to return. It should have no bearing on the actual instance properties themselves. The EXPAND property does not impact how the CS calculates the RECURRENCE-ID of any particular instance; that is already defined by iCalendar. 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...