- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:42:14 +0100
- To: Bernard Desruisseaux <bernard.desruisseaux@oracle.com>
- CC: CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, Calsify WG <ietf-calsify@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Bernard Desruisseaux wrote: > > I thought it would be worthwhile to update everybody on the > changes we are planning to make in draft -11 based on the > issues that have been brought up so far: > > - Added new preconditions: > * CALDAV:number-of-recurrences-within-limits for PUT; > * CALDAV:calendar-collection-location-ok for MOVE and COPY. > - Redefined the CALDAV:no-uid-conflict precondition. > - Minor editorial changes. > - Update to references. > - Added element CALDAV:is-not-defined. > - Added new attribute "negate-condition" to the > CALDAV:text-match element. > > The last two changes were required to be able to query the to-dos > that are *not* completed and *not* cancelled. The issue is that > the CALDAV:calendar-query REPORT does not provide support for a > "not" operator. To be able to address the above use case without > increasing the complexity of the CALDAV:calendar-query REPORT > significantly we have decided to add a new condition "is-not-defined" > and to add a "negate-condition" attribute to be able to negate the > "text-match" condition. > ... Bernard, so did you consider whether CalDAV is going to be based on RFC2518 or on RFC2518bis? That is, would a CalDAV client be able to rely on RFC2518bis, or would they need to interact with both kinds of servers? Are CalDAV server implementors implementing RFC2518bis (or are they planning to)? Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 18 March 2006 17:50:23 UTC