Subject: Re: VTIMEZONE conflicts - possible solution

From: JP Rosevear <[email-masked]>
Date: 08 May 2001 13:22:14 -0400

On 03 May 2001 10:15:52 -0700, Eric Busboom wrote:  
> The presence of the SOLIDUS character ( US-ASCII 47) as a prefix
> indicates that distinct usages of the TZID will refer to functionally
> equivalent timezone data. Two VTIMEZONE are "functionally equivalent" when
> the set of time shifts generated by one VTIMEZONE is equivalent to the set
> generated by the other.

If this is going to be the case, then perhaps you should define the two
vtimezones as functionally equivalent if, for the lifespan of the the
appointment (ie from the first occurrence to the last) the set of time
shifts generated is equivalent.  This keeps timezones that contain extra
historical data or know about future changes from automatically being
not considered functionally equivalent.

-JP
-- 
--
=======================================================================
JP Rosevear                             [email-masked]
Ximian Inc.                             http://www.ximian.com

---

From: Damon Chaplin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 15:25:50 -0400

> not considered functionally equivalent.

But then you are back to having multiple VTIMEZONEs with the same TZID.
So you either have to merge them together (a bit awkward, and not secure)
or rename them or something.

Damon