KEP 3: Introduction of 'subevent' sub-tag for 'exclusion' from 'recurrence'

Georg C. F. Greve greve at
Wed Nov 17 17:22:26 CET 2010

On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16.00:45 Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) 
> Do we want the subevent element to be a child of the exclusion for
> recurrence,  or do we want to consider these are not exclusions to the
> event perse, but instead exceptions?

Martin's proposal was to make them children, which allows the most compact 
notation and is the most backward compatible. Otherwise you'd break backward 
compatibility, because you'd need to find some other way to store WHICH of the 
recurrences is being modified through the subevent.

> I would like to have documented which elements must or may be stored in
> within  subevent elements though;

It might be easier to do this by exclusion.

The two fields I don't think a subevent should be allowed to touch are


and then we might want to mandate that two fields must be set, i.e.


to track when a subevent was spun off.

Best regards,

Georg C. F. Greve
Chief Executive Officer

Kolab Systems AG
Zürich, Switzerland

e: greve at
t: +41 78 904 43 33

pgp: 86574ACA Georg C. F. Greve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the format mailing list