Subject: Re: SCHRANGE

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 15:10:34 GMT

Doug Royer wrote:
>Your right - I forgot :-)
>
>                DTSTART;VALUE=PERIOD:<period>
>
>                and perhaps:
>
>                DTEND;VALUE=PERIOD:<period>

Actually, PERIOD is not a valid value type for DTSTART, DTEND, DUE.
This is also a big design change, not just a simple additional value type 
for DTSTART and DTEND. The semantics for DTSTART, DTEND and DUE are very 
precise and would current direction for interoperability based on 
iCalendar would be jeapordized by this change. I strongly disagree with 
making this design change for these properties.
The requirements for representing an event with tentative date/times can 
be addressed without introducing this incompatability with RFC2445 based 
implementations by specifying tentative ranges for start/end/due 
date/times with a new property.
In addition, just as DTSTART/DTEND/DUE can take on a DATE value, so will 
this new set of properties (e.g., DTSTART-RANGE, DTEND-RANGE, DUE-RANGE). 
However, this value (e.g., PERIOD-DATE) type for a date only based period 
of dates is not defined in RFC2445. I quick look at ISO8601 also indicates 
that it is not addressed in section 5.5, "Period of Time" or any other 
section of the standard. Of course, this wouldn't stop us from adding this 
extension to our standard!
-- Frank