Subject: Re: AD review issue #4: Supporting both VTODO and VEVENTin thesame iCalendar stream (was: Re: [Ietf-calsify] Re: AD review on2445bis)

From: Reinhold Kainhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 05:47:49 +0200

Am Dienstag, 15. Juli 2008 schrieb Lisa Dusseault:
> NEW:
>
>     An iCalendar object MUST include the "PRODID" and "VERSION" calendar
>     properties.  In addition, it MUST include at least one calendar
>     component.   Applications MUST ignore
>     x-comp and iana-comp they don't recognized.

Ignoring means that they can savely discard all X-properties, which is a bad 
idea in my view.

Cheers,
Reinhold

- -- 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, Vienna University of Technology, Austria
email: [email-masked], http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial and Actuarial Mathematics, TU Wien, http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/
 * K Desktop Environment, http://www.kde.org, KOrganizer maintainer
 * Chorvereinigung "Jung-Wien", http://www.jung-wien.at/
_______________________________________________
Ietf-calsify mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify

---

From: "Tim Hare" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:11:00 -0400

I thought the very definiton of x-properties was that they were
'experimental' and as such not "properly" part of the specification which
needed to be handled by all conforming pieces of software.  I think that
they should be ignored, but not necessarily discarded - if a CUA creates an
iCalendar object with x- properties and asks a CS to store it, AND the CS
does not recognize those x-properties it should still, in opinion, store
them but take no action on them or because of them.

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Reinhold Kainhofer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 11:48 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Lisa Dusseault; Tim Hare
Subject: Re: AD review issue #4: Supporting both VTODO and VEVENT in thesame
iCalendar stream (was: Re: [Ietf-calsify] Re: AD review on2445bis)

Cheers,
Reinhold

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, Vienna University of Technology, Austria
email: [email-masked], http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
 * Financial and Actuarial Mathematics, TU Wien,
http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/
 * K Desktop Environment, http://www.kde.org, KOrganizer maintainer
 * Chorvereinigung "Jung-Wien", http://www.jung-wien.at/ -----BEGIN PGP
SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIxKBlTqjEwhXvPN0RAheFAKCu06TILFay0p0exrMZfmKMSJvnoQCgtdAJ
T0CpEzSZS/0d02VFvN8bgoM=
=A6Ez

---

From: Reinhold Kainhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:46:27 +0200

> them but take no action on them or because of them.

I completely agree, that's why I find the word "ignore" not ideal.
I just wanted to point out that "ignore" might possibly be misunderstood 
as "feel free to discard them". It makes a difference if you ignore a 
property/parameter on reading (i.e. don't parse it at all and thus also not 
save it) or ignore it on processing (i.e. it's there but you don't do 
anything with it).
This also applies to the issues #79 of my review of rfc2446bis-07.

Cheers,
Reinhold
- --