Subject: CAP: moving components

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:35:00 -0400

The editors note for 7.2.1.6 (MOVE) says:

> 1) Should one be able to move a calendar owned by person X into a 
> calendar owned by person Y. (Can these such rights be specified in VCARs?)

I think such a move is probably risky; if it's possible, though, then it 
must be possible to write VCARs to control it.

> 2) Should we also be able to move components from one calendar to another?

Definitely--otherwise there's no way for a user to correct their mistake 
if they create a component in the wrong calendar.

> What if the calendars are owned by different users?

As with moving calendars, I think this is problematic. Does ownership 
change? (Permitting an arbitrary user to change ownership is potentially 
risky; if nothing else, it permits someone to create incriminating data 
and make it look like it was created by someone else.) If not, does the 
new user have the ability to remove the component from their calendar? 
They'd better be able to; but, if they can, where does it go? Can they 
delete it?

-- 
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Stupid, adj.: Losing $25 on the game and $50 on|
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>|the instant replay.                            |
\================================================================/

---

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:23:12 -0400

I Agree:

  - you should be able to move a component/calendar from one calendar to
    another as long as the calendars are owned by the same user
  - you should not be able to move a calendar/component owned by person
X
    into a calendar owner by person Y. (If in the future, we may find
this
    useful, we can add it to a latter version of CAP.)

Any objections?

George

---

From: "David L. Nicol" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:17:24 -0500

Two thoughts:

	1:  moving, and editing existing, make sense as optional features
	    rather than core features since they can both be accomplished
	    in the CUA rather than the CS.  Consider e-mail.  An e-mailing
	    system set up just for the dangerously outspoken might allow
	    the cancelation of a message that was composed, but to edit a message
	    you would cancel the old one and replace it with a new one.

	    This is much simpler to define, since you don't need to have an
	    editing language.

	2:  Questions of access rights following movement of events from calendar
	    to calendar spring from a confusion which comes from thinking that
	    the obvious law of physics that an item can only be in one container
	    holds in the n-dimensional world of data structures.  It doesn't.
	    If the standard adopts an abstraction in which "Events" as such have
	    lives (independent unique keys, at least) of their own, then common
	    events, such as "The Workday Begins" can be included in everyone's
	    calendar without needing to be repeated and repeated and repeated.

-- 
                                           David Nicol 816.235.1187
"In the world of the future, the new illiterate will be the person
who has not learned how to ignore morons" -- Not Alvin Toffler