Subject: CAP: inconsistency in Overlapped Booking definition

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:31:32 -0400

In section 1.3, the definition of Overlapped Booking says it's a 
policy that can be applied to a calendar or an individual entry. 
However, the definition of Calendar Policy seems to indicate that 
policies apply only to calendars; this is inconsistent.

In any case, it seems like an Overlapped Booking policy for individual 
entries would be redundant, since the same effect can be obtained by the 
TRANSP property on VEVENTs.

-- 
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Dave Barry for President! He'll Keep Dan Quayle.|
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>|(OK, it's old)                                  |
\=================================================================/

---

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:00:37 -0400

Yes it seems wrong. Anyone know of why we need or wanted Overlapped
Booking policies for individual entries?

  If there are no objections, I'll fix the definition of
Overlapped Booking.

George