Closed rfc2822 closed 8 months ago
If this really is a problem ... we can remove RRULEs that are part of event exceptions (events with a RECURRENCE-ID) if their SEQUENCE is bigger than 0.
Is this what you want to do? This would be the first time we "repair" something that seems to be perfectly valid by the standard.
Is this what you want to do? This would be the first time we "repair" something that seems to be perfectly valid by the standard.
Do you mean RRULEs in the exception of RRULEs are valid? I don't think so, even if it's not mentioned explicitly. But apart from not having seen this at any time (and in the original discussion it was clearly a mistake in the iCalendar), the standard speaks about the exception being "individual instances", and with RRULE it's not an indivdual instance anymore.
Do you mean RRULEs in the exception of RRULEs are valid? I don't think so, even if it's not mentioned explicitly. But apart from not having seen this at any time (and in the original discussion it was clearly a mistake in the iCalendar), the standard speaks about the exception being "individual instances", and with RRULE it's not an indivdual instance anymore.
Yes, I don't think it's good or smart to have though. I used a validator to check, but that one could of course also be either wrong or just lenient about it.
And you are making a fair point, the standard speaking about individual instance an RRULE instance not being a genuine "individual" instance.
I wonder why apple and thunderbird have no issue with this though.
we can remove RRULEs that are part of event exceptions (events with a RECURRENCE-ID) if their SEQUENCE is bigger than 0.
So would you add the SEQUENCE > 0 check, or is that unecessary? :)
Yes, I don't think it's good or smart to have though. I used a validator to check, but that one could of course also be either wrong or just lenient about it.
Maybe they don't had the idea that this could happen and just ignore it ;)
I wonder why apple and thunderbird have no issue with this though.
As I have seen, at least Apple just ignores it.
If this really is a problem ... we can remove RRULEs that are part of event exceptions (events with a RECURRENCE-ID) if their SEQUENCE is bigger than 0.
I don't understand how it's related to the SEQUENCE
?
I think it would be good to ignore the "RRULE" of modified events
You were speaking of "modified events" here. But I can see now, that you mean the RRULE exception is the modification itself.
I don't understand how it's related to the
SEQUENCE
?
Good, then we don't need it :)
You were speaking of "modified events" here. But I can see now, that you mean the RRULE exception is the modification itself.
Ah yes, I mean the RRULE of exceptions of recurring events 😃
For more information, see the discussion:
Originally posted by @JorisBodin in https://github.com/bitfireAT/davx5-ose/discussions/558#discussioncomment-8494027
We could possibly do it in
EventValidator.repair()
. What do you think @sunkup?