Pre-KEP input sought: Priority for events? (in line with tasks?)(similar to VEVENT & VTODO?)

Shawn Walker swalker at
Tue May 31 21:47:04 CEST 2011


Outlook's priority is a integer value which are:

Urgent		1
Normal		0
Non Urgent	-1

What we have done is map the iCalendar priority to the following:

		Outlook	iCalendar
Urgent		1	0 to 3
Normal		0	4 to 6
Non Urgent	-1	7 to 9

The only issue of having a value of 0 to 9 is that we can lose the original value when converting
back to iCalendar.

I think having the priority in the common field would be better to standardized the priority field.


On 5/31/2011 12:24 PM, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> Hi all,
> A customer has approached us with the request to store event priority 
> information, similar to what is allowed in iCalendar:
>  Priority
>    Property Name:  PRIORITY
>    Purpose:  This property defines the relative priority for a calendar
>       component.
>    Value Type:  INTEGER
>    Property Parameters:  IANA and non-standard property parameters can
>       be specified on this property.
>    Conformance:  This property can be specified in "VEVENT" and "VTODO"
>       calendar components.
>    Description:  This priority is specified as an integer in the range 0
>       to 9.  A value of 0 specifies an undefined priority.  A value of 1
>       is the highest priority.  A value of 2 is the second highest
>       priority.  Subsequent numbers specify a decreasing ordinal
>       priority.  A value of 9 is the lowest priority.
>       A CUA with a three-level priority scheme of "HIGH", "MEDIUM", and
>       "LOW" is mapped into this property such that a property value in
>       the range of 1 to 4 specifies "HIGH" priority.  A value of 5 is
>       the normal or "MEDIUM" priority.  A value in the range of 6 to 9
>       is "LOW" priority.
> According to what I could find in the specification, priority is only available 
> in the 'task' object, and then only in a range of 1-5, with 1 as the highest 
> priority. The '0' for 'undefined' does not appear to exist.
> So here are the questions:
>  (a) Does anyone else have this requirement, and particular cases they
> 	would request to have taken into account?
>  (b1) Should we add priority to the 'event' object type?
>  (b2) Or should we move priority one level up from 'task' into the common 
> fields in events and tasks, of which there are already several?
>  (c1) Should we implement the 0-9 priorities of iCalendar?
>  (c2) Or should we stay with the 1-5 approach?
> Advantage of (c1) would obviously be better compatibility with iCalendar and 
> iTip, while (c2) would mean full legacy compatibility. But then we 
> (necessarily) have two breaking changes already, and this is a fairly small 
> one that we might just add to the changeset.
> And (b2) obviously has the advantage (besides being compatible with VTODO) of 
> one definition for the entire set of objects, over two separate (and in the 
> worst future case, diverging) definitions.
> And even when choosing (b2) would older datasets continue to work.
> So I guess I'm currently having a slight preference for (b2) (c1).
> But I'd very much like to get input from others, as well.
> Best regards,
> Georg
> _______________________________________________
> Kolab-format mailing list
> Kolab-format at

Shawn Walker
Senior Software Developer
swalker at
Bynari, Inc.
222 W Las Colinas Blvd, Suite 1540E
Irving, TX  75039
(800) 241-1086
(214) 350-5772 X29
(214) 352-3530 fax

More information about the format mailing list