Re: RELATED-TO
Doug Royer <[email protected]> Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:22:41 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.calendar |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Mike Higginbottom wrote: > > 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? Years ago I and some others wanted a hierarchical structure in calendaring as an option. That is like a company tree, corporate, departments, groups, ..., individuals. There was not sufficient support for that model. What was left was a free form RELATED-TO property. > 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? That is what I use and there is no restriction on that value at all across vendors. > Is the RELATED-TO property only required to maintain integrity > within the CS? Its not required at all. It was intended for CUA use so that it could make hierarchical calendars. However without any predefined meaning or standardized value, it would be hard to enforce across implementations. > 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'? Yes. And at this point its value is vendor specific. We could add a parameter that means use the value of the RELATED-TO property as defined RFC-XXXX. And if not provided, its a free frorm value. -- Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com -------------------------------|----------------------------- [email protected] | Office: (208)520-4044 http://Royer.com/People/Doug | Fax: (866)594-8574 | Cell: (208)520-4044 We Do Standards - You Need Standards
smime.p7s
(application/x-pkcs7-signature, 4.6 KB) - not displayed