Subject: Do we need GEO-BOUNDS?

From: Eric Busboom <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:32:04 -0800 (PST)

Last August, Doug Royer proposed a GEO-BOUND property to be added to
RFC2445. It had something to do with defining the geographical extents of
a timezone. 

The request is online at: 

	http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg04037.html

Do we really need this property? If I don't get any compelling support, I
will exclude it from the updates to RFC2445.

eric

---

From: "Greg FitzPatrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:31:36 +0100

Eric, Pat, Bob and list members

We will begin submitting the SKiCal extensions as proposals to this list.
As agreed with Pat Egan we will submit each individual Property and Property
Parameter in a separate mail - where the particular name of these will be in
the Subject field.

It is our sincere hope that each of these will be accepted as an update to
RFC2445.  If this happens then SKiCal and iCal will be identical!  Even in
the event that this does not happen the comments and criticisms received
will be of great benefit in preparing the SKiCal draft for its last call.

The following general property parameters will be submitted as additions to
section 4.2 Property Parameters: TERM, OPTIME, OPRULES, ITEM, SKIROLE

The following Component Properties will be submitted as additions to 4.8
Component Properties: TITLE
PERSONS, THINGS, THINKS, PARTREL, LANGUE, ORIENTATION, WHURL, SKUID, VENUE,
DIRECTIONS, PLACENAME, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, PROHIBITED, PRICE, BOOKINGS,
HANDICAP-FACILITIES, PAYMENT-METHOD, PROMO, CONTROL, PUBLISHER

Greg