Re: CfC: Calendar FPWD

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:10 +0100, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> this is a call for consensus to see if there are any objections to
> publishing the Calendar API as a FPWD. The group is aware of a number
> of outstanding issues, and the overarching issue of whether to make a
> Powerbox-based API is still standing, but at least some of us feel
> that there's value in getting feedback early and often.
> 
> The draft can be read at:
> 
>   http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/calendar/
> 
> Note that there is no requirement on FPWDs to be perfect — if they
> were perfect we'd go straight to LC. They need to be good for broader
> review, and reasonably feature-complete.
> 
> Where CfCs are concerned, silence is considered to be assent, but
> positive support is preferred (even if simply with a +1).

-1

This still does not allow for accurate representation of timezones, as I
have detailed at length in the past.

The HTML5 date specification only allows an offset from UTC, which is
(usually) fine for the time of a specific instance of an event, but
which does not contain enough information to accurately determine the
times for subsequent instances of repeating events.


Additionally, as I have previously also noted, the repeat specification
does not allow for frequencies such as 'monthly, on the 2nd tuesday'
etc, which are commonly used for specifying things like club meetings,
user group meetings, school committee meetings and things of that ilk.


I'm happy to edit and modify that specification to remedy these
deficiencies, if that's all the problem is.


Regards,
     Andrew.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://andrew.mcmillan.net.nz/                     Porirua, New Zealand
Twitter: _karora                                  Phone: +64(272)DEBIAN
    I have not seen high-discipline processes succeed in commercial
                     settings. - Alistair Cockburn

------------------------------------------------------------------------