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

Funny enough, my understanding of RRULE parsing was incorrect and I made
some mistakes with my implementation, because it already follows what Ken
suggested. I added all four of the rules from his e-mail (and their
expansions) to my rscale_golden.txt (attached) and it passes without any
changes. I have no objections to clarifying text about the order of SKIP
processing.

As mentioned in another thread, I'd prefer to have SKIP=BACKWARD as default
to reduce the total amount of text in RRULEs (that is, sum of all RRULEs
stored in the world). Length of RRULEs matter from both performance and
readability point of view. But SKIP=OMIT is an acceptable compromise if
consensus points in this direction.

Grisha

On Wed Feb 04 2015 at 4:13:01 PM Marten Gajda <marten@dmfs.org> wrote:

> Oh, interesting. One more reason to make SKIP=OMIT the default, IMHO.
>
>
> Am 4. Februar 2015 15:49:07 MEZ, schrieb Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>:
>
>> Hi Ken,
>>
>> --On February 4, 2015 at 9:34:19 AM -0500 Ken Murchison
>> <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  +1 for Ken's proposal.
>>>>
>>>>  I couldn't find it in the latest draft (maybe I just didn't look close
>>>>  enough), but I think it should be pointed out that in this context
>>>>  "invalid day" refers to leap days only. I.e. SKIP=FORWARD doesn't
>>>>  apply to Feb 30 or similar dates.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  Actually, for Feb 30, SKIP=FORWARD should yield Mar 1, which is why the
>>>  draft say "invalid day".
>>>
>>>  Same for April 31.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I think an "invalid" day means either a leap day or a day-of-month
>> value that exceeds the number of days in the current
>> month.
>>
>>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail
> gesendet.
> _______________________________________________
> calsify mailing list
> calsify@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify
>

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

Attachment: rscale_golden.txt