- From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 11:10:43 -0700
- To: "Walter H." <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info>
- Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Mar 19, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Walter H. <Walter.H@mathemainzel.info> wrote: >>> But this is far out of scope for the ietf. >>> >> >> Actually the IETF does specify that in RFC5545 (iCalendar). iCalendar defines the time range <start, end> as start being "inclusive" and "end" being exclusive. >> >> However, for all-day events, showing a 1 day event on Monday as "Monday -> Tuesday" is certainly "odd" as most users don't appreciate the difference between "inclusive" and "exclusive". > Exact this is the bug, because some logic uses this and follows invalid things ... If it is. A bug, it is in the way events are displayed by the client application, which is out of scope. > when the client allows to define, only to show events going on the actual day or later, such events are shown, too ... > > by the way, the RFC5545 is bullshit, because nobody interprets the following > "working days from monday to friday" > like this ... I cannot find that sort of indication (Monday to Friday) in that RFC. That RFC isn't as explicit as I would like about whether date ranges are inclusive or exclusive. It doesn't seem to use intervals for many items (e.g., Mon-Fri seems to be indicated by the list "mon, tue, wed, thu, fri", and interval ends must be later than their start (but that doesn't require that the end time be included in the interval; it could just indicate that zero-length intervals must be indicated as instances rather than intervals. However, the issue you seem to be having is with applications, how they display times, and how they explain that information to their users. Which is out of scope for the IETF. Joe
Received on Sunday, 19 March 2017 18:12:06 UTC