Subject: Re: Recurrence UNTIL/RDATE/EXDATE properties with DATE values

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 04:38:28 +0000

John, since you and Bruce are the only ones commenting on the topic, I'm 
not sure we have concensus.  If no one replies in a week, let's assume 
there is concensus.  That ought to shake the trees a bit. 
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
11/16/00 05:40 PM

        To:     "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: Recurrence UNTIL/RDATE/EXDATE properties with DATE values

[email-masked] wrote:

> >OK, in this case, *all* the values involved will be DATEs;
> there
> >will be no DATE-TIMEs at all.
>
> Correct.  The times are implied to be 00:00:00 relative to the
> recipient.  You asked for cases where VALUE=DATE were used and
> I gave 'em to you.  Did I miss something?

I think the previous complication arose when DATEs were combined
with DATE-TIMEs.  Never mind, though; see below.

> The concensus reached was basically:
>
> 1: RDATEs inherit the exact time from the DTSTART.  If DTSTART
> has VALUE=DATE then the implied 00:00:00 is inherited.
> 2: EXDATEs do not inherit exact times if they are VALUE=DATE.

This is the part I didn't catch before: that RDATE & EXDATE were
treated differently.  I can go along with that.  Do we have
consensus for changing the RFC, then?

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"Time is money, and price is information."   |
[email-masked]|--Russ Nelson                                |
\==============================================================/