Subject: Re: different calendar scales

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:33:46 -0500

Tim suggested on 09/23/2003 02:24:11 AM:
> I propose that CAP 10.7 be revised so that calscale-props is included as 
a 
> required response to the GET-CAPABILITY command, and that any 
> examples for GET-
> CAPABILITY be modified to show CALSCALE: GREGORIAN, HEBREW, JALALIL 
> CRLF (or a 
> similar list of calendar scales) being returned. 

Hmm, Mark didn't hop up and down on you for trying to make a change but 
then again noone seems to have responded (or Im missing WG traffic).   The 
suggestion has merit in that it would make adding support for 
non-GREGORIAN scales easy however adding to CAP is against the editors 
mantra. 

I like the idea but since there are currently no other calendar scales out 
there nor are there any proposals for any Im not sure there is sufficent 
need at this time.  Of course putting it in after the fact can be harder 
(imagine a CAP 1.0 client trying to use CAP to a HEBREW only CS...  Sucks 
to be that CU!)

There are 2 ways to approach this and neither cause any big delays in CAP. 

1: Simply add some text to Section 10.7 GET-CAPABILITY Command that says 
something like:

    For this version of CAP, both sides are assumed to support only the 
GREGORIAN calendar scale entries.  Entries in other calendar scales MUST 
NOT be sent to this version of a CAP implementation.

2: We can update CAP to actually return CALSCALE in the ABNF:

   cap-vreply     = "BEGIN" ":" "VCALENDAR" CRLF
                   ; The following properties may be in any order.
                   ;
                    prodid
                    version
                    reply-cmd
                    other-props
                    "BEGIN" ":" "VREPLY" CRLF
                    ; The following properties may be in any order.
                    ;
                    cap-version
                    calscale
                    car-level
                    components
                    stores-expanded
                    maxdate
                    mindate
                    itip-version
                    max-comp-size
                    multipart
                    query-level
                    recur-accepted
                    recur-expand
                    recur-limit
                    other-props
                    "END" ":" "VREPLY" CRLF
                   "END" ":" "VCALENDAR" CRLF

and then add some text to the command that says something like:

    The "GET-CAPABILITY" reply MUST include a CALSCALE property.  This 
indicates all the calendar scales which the sender understands.  Data that 
is not in one of those calendar scales MUST NOT be sent.

This would make the issue of a CAP 1.0 CUA talking to a HEBREW-only CS 
more easily detected and thus fail nicer ("The CS you are connecting only 
supports calendars in a scale I do not understand so I am unable to work 
with it.  Please upgrade me or use a different server.")

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:17:52 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:

> I like the idea but since there are currently no other calendar scales 
> out there nor are there any proposals for any Im not sure there is 
> sufficent need at this time.  Of course putting it in after the fact 
> can be harder (imagine a CAP 1.0 client trying to use CAP to a HEBREW 
> only CS...  Sucks to be that CU!) 

Yeah, but that'd be the case either way; putting scales into the 
capabilities just means you *know* it sucks to be you.

I think, if we ever get non-Gregorian scales, we'll have to mandate that 
all iCalendar implementations support Gregorian, for interop with 
existing implementations.  As I understand it, the only place where this 
would be sticky is in RRULE.  Individual dates can always be translated; 
but people who use a lunar calendar, say, may want to schedule recurring 
events according to patterns that have no equivalent in a solar 
calendar.  If so, then the RRULEs from a lunar scale simply could not be 
translated into Gregorian.  But there really isn't any good solution for 
that; people who want to schedule events based on phase of the moon will 
not be able to do so when communicating with people whose CUs don't 
support it.

"Oh, hell, let's leave the problem for future generations."  "Good 
idea.  It'll make them feel more involved." -- Doonesbury (two of the 
authors of the US Constitution, discussing slavery)

-- 
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                        |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                      |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                     |
|===============================================================|
|"There will be no more there. We will all be here."--networkMCI|
|ad                                                             |
\===============================================================/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:56:20 -0500

> existing implementations. 

That defeats the purpose of having CALSCALE in the entity doesnt it?  The 
reason that CALSCALE exists was so that going forward ANY CUA who does the 
right thing and checks for CALSCALE first will be able to fail in a 
graceful way instead of accidentally running amok off in the weeds.  Well 
behaved iCalendar implementations SHOULD be checking CALSCALE first and if 
its there, making sure it is one they grok before trying to deal with any 
time/date values on ANY property, not just recurrences. 

Its better to put up a dialog with "This iCalendar is based on the 
'MiddleEarth' calendar scale which I do not understand.  I am unable to 
properly open and display it.  Do you want me to notify the sender of this 
or just toss it in the trash?" than try to unwind recurrence rules that 
will appear malformed or invalid and put cruft on the users calendar (or 
crash in doing parsing attempts or...).

More practically, if you ignore the CALSCALE:HEBREW and treat the RDATEs 
as GREGORIAN date/time values you could be in a world of hirt.  For 
example, 15-Dec-1998 (GREGORIAN; 19981215) is 26-Kislev-5759 (Hebrew; 
Maybe 57590326 in ISO-9601 notation).  If an older iCalendar client 
ignored CALSCALE they could misparse it and put an entry on the users 
calendar for ~3700 years in the future instead of ~5 years ago.

Also, you need to factor in that not all data is going to be CAP sourced. 
It may arrive via iMIP or some other means.

>                          But there really isn't any good solution for 

> not be able to do so when communicating with people whose CUs don't 

Thats why we never said all C&S MUST be in GREGORIAN calendar scale and 
why we invented the CALSCALE property.

So do you think adding calscale to the GET-CAPABILITY response is a good 
or bad thing??  I even provided sample text and ABNF for Doug to use if 
the group thinks its a smart thing to do.

Bruce
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:40:20 -0500

[email-masked] wrote:

> 'MiddleEarth' calendar scale which I do not understand.

Yeah, OK; it's analogous to character set tagging.

> So do you think adding calscale to the GET-CAPABILITY response is a 
> good or bad thing??

Um...probably a good thing, on reflection.

-- 
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                          |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                        |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                       |
|=================================================================|
|I'm a zygote, he's a zygote, she's a zygote, wouldn't you like to|
|be a zygote, too?                                                |
\=================================================================/

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:52:18 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> That defeats the purpose of having CALSCALE in the entity doesnt it?

The original proposal was the CAPABILITY reply be extended. Please
read all of the posts before replying with more underinformed comments.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:02:22 -0500

Mark Smith wrote:

>>>I think, if we ever get non-Gregorian scales, we'll have to mandate
>>>      
>>>
>>that
>>    
>>
Please read the post you are replying to before making accusations.  I 
was talking about *all* iCalendar implementations, not just CAP; Bruce 
responded accordingly.

-- 
/=====================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]              |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com            |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.           |
|=====================================================|
|"The Reality Check's in the mail." --L. Peter Deutsch|
\=====================================================/

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:27:02 -0700

> was talking about *all* iCalendar implementations, not just CAP; Bruce

The original post came from TIM not you, if you wanted to change
the subject you should change the SUBJECT line, if you did not (and
you did not) then no, TIM was not talking about that.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:41:28 -0500

As I have said before, everyone, including you, Mr. Smith, should respond 
to this list with constructive comments only.  I'm really very tired of 
the way this list has turned into a series of nastygrams.  I continue to 
get private notes from people saying they no longer particpate on the list 
because of the tone of many of the notes.  Therefore, I want everyone - 
Doug, Mark, Bruce - everyone - to keep notes to calendaring topics.  If it 
continues, I will go back to the IETF management and ask them to remove 
people from our lists.  That's a promise.

Mark Smith <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
11/04/2003 13:52

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
Re: different calendar scales

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:35:57 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> As I have said before, everyone, including you, Mr. Smith, should
> respond to this list with constructive comments only.  I'm really very
> tired of the way this list has turned into a series of nastygrams.  I
> continue to get private notes from people saying they no longer
> particpate on the list because of the tone of many of the notes.
>  Therefore, I want everyone - Doug, Mark, Bruce - everyone - to keep
> notes to calendaring topics.  If it continues, I will go back to the
> IETF management and ask them to remove people from our lists.  That's
> a promise.

Remove me if you want, but Bruce's inaccurate posts and your lack
of willingness to act is killing CAP.  You let him ramble on and
on and on about items that have been in the draft for years without
ever calling consensus. That's not Bruce's or Doug's fault - please act.

You seem to be unwilling or unable to make technical decisions. Just
because Bruce posts does not mean that he is right or accurate. He
almost never posts a proposal and almost never responds to questions
and declares that others misunderstand him. And you seem to be unwilling
or unable to notice.

You asked me in private email if I worked for Doug which I found
insulting.
Do you work for Bruce or are you affiliated with Bruce or his company?
What is you motive for allowing Bruce to post inaccurate information
over and over again and then complain when someone calls Bruce on it?

Looking over the archives I can only find a small handful of times
that you called consensus on anything.  No wonder CAP is not finished.

Doug send me private email about a commercial calendar consortium that
you
and someone else are forming wanting to know if I knew or wanted
to participate (as Doug's company runs our calendar servers). Is that
your motive for not acting on CAP? Did you bother telling this list that
you have commercial motives that may keep you from being impartial?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:36:41 -0500

I expected that my note would not be popular.  I'm not going to respond to 
all your items because it's not worth my time nor the lists.  I too went 
back to try to find concensus - and responded to the list the very few 
times we had any at all.  I too have felt I wasn't doing much - but then, 
I have been assured in private emails, there hasn't been much to respond 
to in the way of concensus.  Believe me, I will lay blame on myself before 
anyone, so as yourself will do so.  That's my style - up front and honest.

Regarding the consortium, this is not a secret.  it was announced 
publically at an IETF over a year and a half ago.  The consortium is a 
non-profit organization - not a commercial one.  I am not going to be the 
person running it.  It is my brainchild as an effort to get calendaring 
and scheduling into the limelight and give recognition to organizations 
that have calendaring products and to give information to those people 
looking for calendaring products as well.  We also hope to host the 
interoperability tests and provide an even better mechanism for this.  It 
is not, nor has it been the intention, of the consortium to go against the 
IETF work.  In fact, it is meant to be a continuation of the efforts.

At least two IETF meetings ago, the Area Directors asked us to make 
efforts to close up the working group.  I asked for more time so we could 
make changes to the three RFC's and to get CAP out the door.  That's when 
I placed the last call.  Everyone knows what happened next.

With regards to insulting, I believe your last paragraph is the most 
insulting of all.  No, I am not endorsing the consortium for commerical 
reasons.  I will not get monies from the organization.  I will not get 
recognition.  I expect to provide hard work, my time, my efforts, all 
towards getting calendaring somewhere other than in the dark ages.

As for asking you if you worked for Doug, it was not meant to be 
insulting.  I saw your email id and saw that it was the same domain as 
Doug's.  It was a curious question - not an insulting one.  I believe when 
I asked you that question, it was also at the same time I privately asked 
you to not be so offensive on the list.  That request, apparently, was not 
heeded.

Again, yet another reason it's probably time to close down the working 
group.  Or, better yet, get another, tougher skinned, working group chair.

11/04/2003 18:35

To
[email-masked]
cc
[email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject
Re: different calendar scales

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 19:45:19 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> Or, better yet, get another, tougher skinned, working group
> chair.

I would vote for that, I can not find ONE constructive comment
or item you have posted in the last year. I can not find that
you called conciseness on anything in the last year even when
no one objected to a proposal.

So, what is your relationship to Bruce/company? 
I found it odd when researching the archives that you seem to back
Bruces inaccurate posts and complain that those who call him on
it are less than professional.