Subject: Re: Extensions To iCalendar

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:53:44 +0000

Patrik, I'm not sure this exact thing was tested.  I am putting it on the 
Testing page for CalConnect2
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
02/07/01 10:06 PM

        To:     Pär Lannerö <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Extensions To iCalendar

At 22.19 +0100 01-02-07, Pär Lannerö wrote:
>Most iCalendar implementations seem to reject any iCalendar object
>containing a property unknown to them.

This seems to be an excellent thing to test at an interoperability 
test. Has this not been tested before?

What do the RFC(s) say about unknown properties? What is the 
recommended action?

    paf

-- 
Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>       Internet Engineering Task Force
Area Director, Applications Area                   http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212            (San Jose) +1-408-525-0940
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:05:43 -0600

Agree with John! Also the "X-token" or whatever the ABNF calls them are also
in the grammar for conformance. 

I am also not certain that "most" implementations gag on this situation. 

Pat and Patrik are right-on in suggesting that we make sure that this is a
test case for the CalConnects.

> Then they're broken.  Anybody who writes an iCalendar 
> implementation should
> keep in mind the "iana-token" clauses all through the ABNF; since the
> implementation can't know what tokens the IANA has 
> registered, it has to ignore
> any values that it doesn't understand.