Re: DTSTART for recurrence instances

"Mark Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Michael Fair wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Michael Fair wrote:
> > >
> > > > The RECURRENCE-IDs are derived from the set described by the object
> > > > with the UID in question but no RECURRENCE-ID property. period.
> > > > The RECURRENCE-ID MUST NEVER be derived from the instance itself.
> > > > If the instance is being stored as a separate object in the CS it
> > > > must also track the RECURRENCE-ID value originally assigned to it.
> > >
> > > How would the CS used by attendee-2 ever have that history in
> > > order to find or track the originall and RECURRENCE-ID?
> >
> > Attendee-2 received a sequence of messages that:
> >
> >    a) defined a 3peat event  (UID:XXX/SEQ:0)
> >    b) redefined that event to be a 2peat event  (UID:XXX/SEQ:1)
> >    c) added a 3rd instance (using ADD)   (UID:XXX/SEQ:2)
>
> You did not follow the example that was sent and that was not the
> question.

Could you please expand on this response?  Would you please clarify
for me the example you think was sent that I am not following?

Here is what I followed:

There were four total examples sent, named methods A, B, C, and D.
Attendee-2 used method A or B.  The example Doug displayed of the
Calendar store was clearly from Method B but I understood why it
could have been A or B because both methods A and B were fundamentally
the same.  The only difference was the method used to construct the
set in step b above (A used RDATE, B used RRULE).

Method A:
a) send original 3peat event
b) send redefinition to make it a 2peat event using DTSTART/RDATE
c) send an add to create the 3rd instance

Method B:
a) send original 3peat event
b) send redefinition to make it a 2peat event using DTSTART/RRULE/EXDATE
c) send an add to create the 3rd instance

What am I not following?
If you still think that I have not addressed the question can you
please rephrase it and/or expand a little more on the question so
that I might understand it and respond to it?

-- Michael --