[calsify] Re: Question about organizerCalendarAddress in JSCalendar bis

[Robert Stepanek <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025, at 1:57 PM, Mauro De Gennaro wrote:
> [..] in one of my earlier replies to this thread I suggested that the “owner” role should be defined in JMAP for Calendars rather than in JSCalendar itself. Neil felt this was not necessary, but I haven’t yet asked him to elaborate on the reasoning.

I think the idea is to keep the "owner" role available for a future I-D that explains how to schedule using JSCalendar, including how to schedule events having multiple owners. In that case, reserving it for JMAP now and making it available for standard use when all the semantics are settled looks to be the safest move.

Alternatively, we might register the OWNER role now for iCalendar if we can describe in both iCalendar and JSCalendar definitions what being an owner means without presuming some future scheduling extension or referring to JMAP server permissions (both of which are out of scope of JSCalendar as an exchange protocol).

> If the “owner” role does remain defined in JSCalendar, then the calext-jscalendar-icalendar draft should clarify whether (a) it maps to a JSPROP or (b) to a new iCalendar ROLE=OWNER, which the draft could then request to be registered with IANA.

The I-D currently states to map to JSPROP but this is my least preferred option. It should either map to the OWNER role, or some other standard iCalendar element, or not be defined as standard JSCalendar element at all. The whole point of jscalendarbis is to find the common ground for interoperability with current iCalendar definitions.

> > Do you agree that we should remove the "attendee" role?
> 
> Yes, I agree. It seems unnecessary, as the intent is already clear from the participant’s status as required, optional, or informational.

Great. I'll mark it as obsolete then.

Regards,
Robert