Re: request + add (Lets try BOOKED)

"Mark Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Michael Fair wrote:
>
> > Further, in keeping with just "the most recent information is all
> > I need", I have absolutely no use for objects with SEQ:0-24 as Mark
> > again seemed to imply.
>
> No you have that backwards. I have always said that the recurrence-id
> has nothing to do with old information about a uid.

Oh great!  I knew we just weren't understanding each other.
Glad we agree. :)

So I guess the only question marks left on behavior that I'm not certain
we agree on have to do with what is considered a "set-redefining" moment
for recurring events, each recurring instance in addition to the UID only
object tracking their own SEQUENCE values, and as a fallout of those two
what the resulting RIDs are for a given SEQUENCE of messages and what the
the authoritative SEQUENCE for a particular UID is.

However that should probably be discussed in a separate thread as we
would be moving way off the topic.

-- Michael --