event XML 1.1 (fix recurrances)

Gerd v. Egidy gerd.von.egidy at intra2net.com
Thu Feb 8 18:44:19 CET 2007

Hi Joon,

> Did I miss something again, <exclusion> is for deleted exceptions, so are
> <subevent> deleted events that are not deleted?

Martin plans to use an <exclusion> and a <subevent> for each changed event. As 
far as I understood him this is for backwards compatibility: a modified 
subevent should at least not be shown with wrong data on old clients.

> Keeping the <exclusion> tag for deletions and <subevent> for "modified"
> recurrences needs no matching between the 2 sets of tags.

This is correct. If we don't want to use the <exclusion> for compatibility 
reasons we can put the <subevent> at the top level without any matching or 
other hassle.

> > I can't find any word in the spec telling me that tags at deeper levels
> > are 
> > any different than tags at the top level. Even if it was a design
> > decision back then it seems like it hasn't made it into the spec.
> How is this implemented in Kontact? 

I don't know. Any Kontact developers here who can tell?

> The root tag preservation was the 
> original design, I have no idea why it was not in the original spec.
> Yes it would be cool to have but it will also be very problematic. I will
> bet you that this would become the single biggest interoperability issue
> between all clients.

I admit that implementing tag preservation on deeper levels is not trivial 
with some client-internal designs. But if we don't do it, we can't extend 
some important structures in the future (see my last mail for examples). So I 
think we should extend the sentence in 1.2 to make sure that no developer 
misunderstands that part.

Kind regards,


More information about the format mailing list