Subject: Re: Component tombstones. Your feedback needed.

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:05:40 +0000

Frank_Dawson/CAM/[email-masked] wrote:

> I think that Andre Courtemanche corrected Steve's append with the clarification
> that "tombstones" relate to a discussion we had about the result of the DELETE
> calendaring command, not the CANCEL scheduling command.

Ah, OK, thanks.  Then, yes, I agree that there would have to be a separate
"tombstone" flag.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/

---

From: Alexander Taler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:20:22 -0400

It also seems that the tombstone property would have to be 
distinct from the "STATUS" property, since you want to 
know that the tombstoned meeting was cancelled, in case 
someone tries to reanimate it.

Alex