RFC: KEP3: Introduction of 'subevent' sub-tag for 'exclusion' from 'recurrence' (revision #10661 2 uses cases for <exception><subevent><deleted> and <exception><subevent><exceptionStartDate>

[Shawn Walker]

Hello Georg,

I took the two discussions from 12/6/2010 and 12/13/2010, my response is below.

On 12/6/2010 12:26 PM, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The latest draft of KEP 3 is unchanged, and still available at
>
> 	http://wiki.kolab.org/User:Greve/Drafts:KEP:3
>
> Some more input would be greatly appreciated.
>
> In particular, the question I've been wondering about is whether we should
> follow the example set by iCal in specifying exceptions from recurrence not
> only by date, but also date range, so for instance it would be possible to
> specify "change all recurrences for the next three months" in one entry.
>
> Any comments? Opinions?
>

I don't think having a date range would be feasible.  In Outlook, you cannot open more than one
occurrence of a recurring event to make the same change, you must open each occurrence to make the
same change.  A user could open a occurrence to span the days it want to modify the subject,
location or the time, but they must delete the other days that will span over before Outlook will
allow the user to save the exception.  The result would be that Outlook will mark three days as
deleted and one date modified (one of the deleted dates would be the modified date).

DeletedInstanceCount: 3
DeletedInstanceDates[0]: 12:00:00.000 AM 3/2/2011
DeletedInstanceDates[1]: 12:00:00.000 AM 3/3/2011
DeletedInstanceDates[2]: 12:00:00.000 AM 3/4/2011
ModifiedInstanceCount: 1
ModifiedInstanceDates[0]: 12:00:00.000 AM 3/2/2011
ExceptionCount: 1
ExceptionInfo[0].StartDateTime: 10:00:00.000 AM 3/2/2011
ExceptionInfo[0].EndDateTime: 11:00:00.000 AM 3/4/2011
ExceptionInfo[0].OriginalStartDate: 08:00:00.000 AM 3/2/2011

Then Outlook would look at the hidden exception message that will contain the information about the
exception of the date of the exception spans over # days.  Outlook stores the time in both UTC and
local time, so that is why you are seeing the one set of times in UTC and the exception info in
local time.

So, with that, the exception information in Kolab would have two deleted exception (in the above
example, Feb 3 and Feb 4) that contains the date and the third exception (in the above example, Feb
2) would have the date that explains the start and end spans without using the "date range."

On 12/13/2010 4:26 AM, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> Hi Alain,
> 
> Not to worry. Just trying to drill to the bottom of all points brought up as 
> their may be oil/gold/diamonds there. :)
> 
> But if you misunderstood that, others might, as well. Maybe the example should 
> make it clearer that there can be as many exclusions as necessary.  The other 
> question that is still on my mind is that of intervals, rather than individual 
> dates - to which there has not yet been a response.
> 
> Any input on that question would be very much welcome.
> 

I'm assuming the question about intervals rather than individual dates is the date range?  If so,
hopefully my idea explains how I think the exception dates should be handled.

Regards,
Shawn