IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [calsify] JSCalendar duration vs. end time

"Alexander Nimmervoll" <nimm@caldavsynchronizer.org> Fri, 15 February 2019 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <nimm@caldavsynchronizer.org>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EE7130E73 for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 04:56:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1hzYGXkrDIXr for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 04:56:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dd40210.kasserver.com (dd40210.kasserver.com [85.13.156.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE66E1275F3 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 04:56:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nbnimm (80-110-99-159.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at [80.110.99.159]) by dd40210.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B48863A0401 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:56:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Alexander Nimmervoll <nimm@caldavsynchronizer.org>
To: calsify@ietf.org
References: <1550160126.3602072.1658018976.28709BD3@webmail.messagingengine.com> <aec2692f-a2dc-4004-b1e4-4e3d3680aa9b@beta.fastmail.com> <029301d4c4fd$5eaca610$1c05f230$@caldavsynchronizer.org> <c61fc29a-f171-42e4-f29b-fbd820ed9974@dmfs.org> <CA+H1sWM4p78Ub8j_f92RLz9nvBVuwvEZx5CstsYS6rnHwFLdZw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+H1sWM4p78Ub8j_f92RLz9nvBVuwvEZx5CstsYS6rnHwFLdZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:56:16 +0100
Message-ID: <03a501d4c52d$d6d2b3c0$84781b40$@caldavsynchronizer.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03A6_01D4C536.38971BC0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: de-at
Thread-Index: AQOLZthb+8PHggH5/l2b8JGbRR609QKonOjiAalRB5ABc14FEgFqbvNuojoNk6A=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/Yhy08W1ZtUyTiJZRv_oYc2TSPNk>
Subject: Re: [calsify] JSCalendar duration vs. end time
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <calsify.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/calsify/>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 12:56:17 -0000

Are the use cases really so different between events, meetings and tasks regarding time? Meetings, flights, concerts and various events also can have an estimated/scheduled duration different to actual duration. Similar for start and end time.

So a data model which implements a standard property/parameter to distinguish between estimated/scheduled and actual start/end/duration could be useful for events and tasks in my opinion.

 

Cheers,
Alex

 

 

Von: calsify <calsify-bounces@ietf.org> Im Auftrag von Garry Shutler
Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Februar 2019 10:45
An: calsify@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [calsify] JSCalendar duration vs. end time

 

As the intended usage is so different, the similarity in naming can only lead to confusion, which has been demonstrated here.

 

If tasks were to have due and estimatedDuration (and perhaps something like commencement rather than start), and events have start and duration it would be more clear that they are different to each other.

 

-

Garry Shutler

CTO & Co-founder, Cronofy
Scheduling Everything for Everyone

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email