Re: RELATED-TO

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:56:33 -0700, Doug Royer <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Currently it is free form field defined in 2445 as 'text'.
>
> Unfortunately there is no predefined enforcement of any value.
>
> Mike Higginbottom wrote:
>
>>
>> What mechanism should be used to identify the parent VAGENDA of a
>> VEVENT  within a calendar store?  I presume adding e.g.
>>
>> RELATED-TO:cap://cal.example.com/mycalendar
>>
>> is the preferred approach.  Is this enforced by CAP?  If so, I can't
>> see  where.
>>
>

Thanks for that Doug.  At the risk of opening a can of worms, I note your  
use of the word 'unfortunately'.  Is this enforcement required and if so  
should it be added to the wish list?  I can see that most CUA to CS and CS  
to CUA transactions will use the TARGET property to explicitly make this  
relationship clear.  Is this always the case?  Is the RELATED-TO property  
only required to maintain integrity within the CS?  I can then see that it  
is a private implementation decision as to how exactly this relationship  
should be maintained.  Is it then a question of 'it would be nice if this  
was enforced but it's not critical'?

Mike Higginbottom
-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/