Subject: RELATED-TO

From: "Mike Higginbottom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:03:30 -0000

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.

-- 
Regards
Mike Higginbottom

Paul Smith Computer Services
01484 855800
[email-masked]
www.pscs.co.uk

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:56:33 -0700

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.
>
> is the preferred approach.  Is this enforced by CAP?  If so, I can't 
> see  where.
>

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email-masked]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   | Fax:    (866)594-8574
                               | Cell:   (208)520-4044

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: "Mike Higginbottom" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:26:09 -0000

>> is the preferred approach.  Is this enforced by CAP?  If so, I can't

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/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:22:41 -0700

Mike Higginbottom wrote:

> 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.

--