Re: [calsify] draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar-02

[Michael Douglass <[e-mail]>]

On 12/19/20 13:50, Ken Murchison wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I just had cause to consult jscalendar-icalendar Section 2.1 
> <draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar-02> and I have a couple of issues:
>
>  1. Why is this value specified to be the entire date-time plus
>     fractional seconds?  Wouldn't the fractional seconds be sufficient?
>  2. The definition of the parameter is incorrect:
>      1. It doesn't include the game of the parameter in the definition
>      2. The value isn't DATE-TIME or DURATION, its value is an
>         extension of date-time.  If keeping a full time representation
>         it should be something like "date-time "." 1*DIGIT
>
1.This was my suggestion - way back in April

As I recall my main problem with the previous approach - which was just 
the fractional part - was that it led to ambiguities and having to 
define how the full value was rounded to produce the truncated iCalendar 
value. Having the full value means you just choose to use either the 
(possibly adjusted) property value or the (possibly more accurate) 
FRACTIONAL parameter value. No processing or worrying about edge cases.

2. I think FRACTIONAL can be used for DURATION as well as as for DTSTART 
and the abnf is wrong anyway. We have

fractional-param = DATE-TIME or DURATION

shouldn't it be something like

fractional-param = "FRACTIONAL" = (date-time | dur-value) ["." 1*DIGIT]
; Value is extended date-time when used with the DTSTART property
; Value is extended dur-value when used with the DURATION property

and we need abnf for etending DTSTART and DURATION


>
> -- 
> Kenneth Murchison
> Senior Software Developer
> Fastmail US LLC
>
> _______________________________________________
> calsify mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify