Pre-KEP input sought: Priority for events? (in line with tasks?)(similar to VEVENT & VTODO?)
Shawn Walker
swalker at bynari.net
Tue May 31 21:47:04 CEST 2011
Georg,
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.
Regards,
Shawn
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:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545.txt
>
> 3.8.1.9. 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 kolab.org
> https://kolab.org/mailman/listinfo/kolab-format
--
Shawn Walker
Senior Software Developer
swalker at bynari.net
Bynari, Inc.
222 W Las Colinas Blvd, Suite 1540E
Irving, TX 75039
http://www.bynari.net
(800) 241-1086
(214) 350-5772 X29
(214) 352-3530 fax
More information about the format
mailing list