Subject: RE: RFC 2445 contradiction

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:06:19 -0600

> I definately don't want to disable the fundamental structure 
> of iCalendar,

Good. I agree.

> but I also don't see how redundancy in the specifications aids
> interoperability. 
> 

There isn't any redundancy between the iCalendar machine processable ABNF
and the iCalendar human readable prose and a separate iTIP specification
that specifies a "scheduling" protocol. Each have a precise rationale.

> As it is, if you want to know where a DTSTART can appear, you 
> have three
> places to look:
> 
> 	The Conformance section of 2.8.4.4, "Date/Time Start"
>

Provides a human readable section that aids in interpreting the ABNF. There
is an error in the text that goes back to when the iCalendar drafts had less
flexible semantics.
 
> 	The ABNF of 4.6.1, "Event Component"
>

Provides a machine processable formal notation for iCalendar grammar.
 
> 	The Restriction tables of iTIP
>

Provides the specification for restrictions on iCalendar usage for a
particular "scheduling" (e.g., inter-personal scheduling) semantics. There
are actually a number of restriction tables, not one. But this isn't
redundant because there are multiple primitives in iTIP.

> As Graham Gilmore  noted, there is a conflict between the Conformance
> section of DTSTART and the ABNF for EVENT.
> 
> So, the question is: do we remove the redundancy or make the redundant
> elements consistent?

Obviously, just fix the typo in the propose sections of iCalendar! Hope that
is now obvious to you too.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:31:33 -0500

> that specifies a "scheduling" protocol. Each have a precise rationale.

But, unless otherwise marked, all text in an RFC is normative, so that both the
prose and the ABNF specify the standard.  That's redundancy.

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |I will not buy this .signature, it is scratched.|
[email-masked]|                                                |
\=================================================================/