Subject: cc: Re: CALSCH Action Items - W-4 Comments

From: Ralph Patterson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:14:21 -0500

On Thu, Jul 29, 1999  8:46 a, [email-masked] wrote:
>
>Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:46:03 GMT
>From: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: CALSCH Action Items - W-4 Comments
>
>Doug:
>In regards to adding "RELATED-TO" property to the VFREEBUSY iTIP
>restriction tables:
>I agree with your objection to adding this. My primary point was to show
>that with minor changes to iTIP (i.e., not having to define new iCalendar
>properties or data structures) we _could_ add support for this capability.
>I too question whether this is a valid requirement for inter-personal
>calendaring and scheduling. Busy time information is more of snapshot
>"reflection" of the "opaqueness" of one's calendar at a given point in
>time. I fail to see the need to provide a link between one busy time
>period and one (or more) element(s) in a calendar. For example, a busy
>time period may actually be a concatenation of a series of contiguous
>"opaque" periods on a calendar. Trying to link the busy time period to an
>individual calendar event would become problematic.
>It would be best to leave the busy time information disjoint from the
>elements that they reflect, other than the "opaqueness" the elements
>reflect on the calendar.
>-- Frank
>

***** Comment from Ralph Patterson on 7/29/1999 at 2:06:40 p CST *****
Frank,
Along these same lines... another thread on the list about "Anniversary" 
(please don't start that again!) talked about all day events. Will we be 
able to show busy/time without these events blocking the whole day? The 
example was Bastille Day. From the discussion the implication was that it 
would "block" time for 24 hours. If that is the case and the example was 
correct, how do I show an event that doesn't block time? Is that going to 
be a function of the "opaqueness" as discussed above? For some Bastille 
Day is a holiday but for me it's a "no time/floating time" appointment. 
I'll celebrate but I will still be available for meetings. Our iCalendar 
implementation allows an appointment with time of (NONE) and looks like a 
"title" for the day rather than an event. Are we out of bounds?
Regards,
Ralph Patterson

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:51:51 -0700 (PDT)

> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:14:21 -0500
> From: Ralph Patterson <[email-masked]>
> 
> able to show busy/time without these events blocking the whole day?

The iCalendar property 'TRANSP' (RFC2445 section 4.8.2.7) allows for a
component to block or not block time in VFREEBUSY.

And in the CAP.TXT draft, there is a 'SCHEDULABLE-HOURS' property that
also effect VFREEBUSY.

In a couple of the CAP editors meetings, someone talked about a
property that allowed multiple bookings in the calendar or not.  I
don't see that in the CAP draft.  I have not done a search to see if
it is in the WG archives or not.  Maybe it should be?
	
-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://playground.sun.com/~dougr
Pager:				[email-masked]
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 22:39:36 GMT

>it is in the WG archives or not.  Maybe it should be?

Needs to be a new discussion point. "Should we have a calendar property 
that indicates whether conflicting events can be scheduled on the 
calendar?"
For example:
CONFLICTS:TRUE    ;sets calendar property to allow scheduling of
                  ;events with overlapping or conflicting start/end
                  ;time intervals.
-- Frank