Subject: Re: SCHRANGE

From: "greg fitzpatrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:36:15 +0100

>From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
>How about something like the following... ?
>
> DTSTART;VALUE=SCHRANGE:<from-date>,<to-date>
>
>and perhaps:
>
> DTEND;VALUE=SCHRANGE:<from-date>,<to-date>
> 
Yes I think were on the right track here.  I support this fully.
  Coincidentally we had a visit from an Indian Journalist from Banglor today
and he laughed at our little debate, since  most holidays on his
subcontinent are lunar based.  He cited Id for example (I hope that is the
right spelling) which is only a confirmed date about six months before it is
to happen.  Prior to that the date window is about three to four days and
there is an Apex - meaning that the day in the the middle of the window has
the highest probability of being Id.
What about my request for a STATUS= DATE-TIME TENTATIVE see below
Greg 
>> Frank's example also declares that the STATUS property is to be set to
>> TENTATIVE when using SCHRANGE.  
>> Can't we make it easier on the CUA parser, by defining a STATUS, which
>> indicates DATE-TIME tentativeness rather than EVENT tentativeness?  Event
>> tentativeness is  uncertainty  over whether the meeting will be held or
not?
>>  DATE-TIME tentativeness is  uncertainty  over exactly when  the meeting
>> will be held?
>> Greg

---

From: Eric Busboom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:34:58 -0700

> > DTEND;VALUE=SCHRANGE:<from-date>,<to-date>

Why is it a new VALUE type? Can we just reuse PERIOD?

eric.