Re: [Ietf-caldav] Comments on draft-dusseault-caldav-05

[Doug Royer <[e-mail]>]

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 
> On Mar 15, 2005, at 6:56 AM, Helge Hess wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 7, 2005, at 1:53, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>>
>>>> Whats the motivation behind this? Is there a particular reason why one
>>>> calendar collection may not contain others?
>>>> From IMAP experience I can tell you that having mailboxes that can 
>>>> contain
>>>
>>> both messages and other 'sub' mailboxes is a real nightmare - from a 
>>> usability standpoint. I think it is well worth avoiding that mess if 
>>> we can.
>>
>>
>> Are there any technical reasons?
> 
> Half-way between "technical reason" and "usability reason" is
 > ease-of-implementation reasons. It's significantly easier to implement
 > a client if the client knows that a calendar collection cannot contain
 > others.  Not only does the code not have to handle both cases but the
 > design (GUI, workflow) can also can be simpler.

And the fact that iCal does not allow it. This debate took place
on the calsch mailing list and produced the RELATED-TO property
for showing relationships between calendars and components. (parent,
child, sibling). See the hierarchical calendars / roll-up debates.

All kinds of debates about how to compute busy time and
what to show in the TOP calendar caused us to abandon the idea.

-- 

Doug Royer                     | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards