Re: [calsify] SKIP was Re: AD review of draft-ietf-calext-rscale-03

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

--On February 5, 2015 at 10:49:39 AM -0500 Barry Leiba 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> And yet I'm still concerned that trying to define SKIP rules outside
> the context of implementation of a specific calendar is complex and
> error prone.  It remains my contention that the best thing to do
> (which also keeps the rules short) is to say that how RRULEs that
> contain RSCALE work without SKIP is dependent upon the calendar
> specified in RRULE, and that when you implement a particular calendar,
> you have to know how that calendar works and support it properly.
> Then we reserve SKIP for exception situations.
>
> I do NOT think that we need to accompany this with any list of
> calendars.  Whoever implements a particular calendar needs to know how
> it works in order to generate the right SKIP values anyway.  So why
> not just say that, and forget about having to include the SKIPs?

I am not convinced that there is one convention per calendar system that is 
consistently used. In discussions I have had with others I got the 
impression that the skip mode was dependent on other factors - e.g. the 
nature of the event. For example the convention for personal anniversaries 
may be different than that for "legal" ones. Previously I cited the 
Gregorian example of someone born on a leap day who prefers to celebrate on 
the 28th, but legally is not considered to be "of age" until the 1st.

The bottom line is conventions for one calendar system can vary from locale 
to locale and it would be very hard for us to define the basis for that.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo