Re: DTSTART for recurrence instances
Mark Smith <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.calendar |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Michael Fair wrote: > > "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 B did NOT send a sequence starting at ZERO to attendee-2. Attendee-2 was not invited until sequence:2. So no such history exists in attende-2's CS. The ONLY way that attendee-2 can expand the instances for the object it was invited to is from the object it self. I can ftp or webdav fetch a sequence:2 .ics file, or get an imip sequence:2 method:request object all by itself. So, it can not be true that the expansion of the sequence:2 object depends on recurrence-id's that pre date the sequence:2 object because attendee-2 will not have that history. Nor will any other attendee that does not get invited in the initial request.