Subject: Re: Recurrence Rules Issue Summary

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:06:28 -0500

John proposed:
>If you don't, though, it might be
>useful to have a rule of thumb like "if two specifiers conflict, then the 
one
>that refers to a larger unit of time takes precedence".  So, for example,
>BYYEARDAY takes precedence over BYMONTH.

I agree that we should add some text to codify the proper behaviour in 
these cases.  However I would recommend that we use the same order of 
evaluation that we described in the RFC.  This is roughly what John 
suggested (we did it by time scale mostly) but its "more consistant" with 
how correct iCalendar is evaluated.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:21:12 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:

> >useful to have a rule of thumb like "if two specifiers
> conflict, then the one
>
> I agree that we should add some text to codify the proper
> behaviour in these cases.  However I would recommend that we
> use the same order of evaluation that we described in the RFC.
> This is roughly what John suggested (we did it by time scale
> mostly) but its "more consistant" with how correct iCalendar is
> evaluated.

OK, fine by me.

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Don't anthropomorphize computers. We don't like|
[email-masked]|it.                                            |
\================================================================/