[Kde-pim] vzic (Was:libical 0.27 is now available)

[David Jarvie]

On Tuesday 27 March 2007 02:34:55 Jason 'vanRijn' Kasper wrote:
> On Monday 26 March 2007 19:17:49 Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 27. März 2007 schrieb Allen Winter:
> > > The generated America/New_York.ics is attached .
> > > Please review and let me know if it looks ok.
> >
> > It looks okay, but I wonder why the dates for past DST rules are expanded
> > to RDATE:19870405T020000
> > RDATE:19880403T020000
> > RDATE:19890402T020000
> > RDATE:19900401T020000
> > RDATE:19910407T020000
> > RDATE:19920405T020000
> > RDATE:19930404T020000
> > RDATE:19940403T020000
> > RDATE:19950402T020000
> > RDATE:19960407T020000
> > RDATE:19970406T020000
> > RDATE:19980405T020000
> > RDATE:19990404T020000
> > .....
> >
> >
> >  instead of simply using an RRULE with an UNTIL rule part... E.g. RFC
> > 2445 gives such an example:
> >      BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
> >      DTSTART:19870405T020000
> >      RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=4;UNTIL=19980404T070000Z
> >      TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
> >      TZOFFSETTO:-0400
> >      TZNAME:EDT
> >      END:DAYLIGHT
> >
> > This is much shorter...
>
> Is one more correct than the other?  Would it be wrong to put in the
> timezone files the way that Allen has the file now?  Or do you think it 's
> worth it to try to fix (?) the vzic code first?

They are both correct, although I shared Reinhold's thoughts when I first saw 
the .ics listing. I have already written some code to convert lists of dates 
to RRULEs, but it wasn't designed to fit into vzic so it might need some work 
to do so. In the meantime, the longwinded version is correct, even if 
longwinded.

> > > Interestingly, the default behavior of vzic is to write
> > > the .ics files to be compatible with Outlook 2000.
> >
> > Yes, because older versions of outlook were only able to handle one
> > DAYLIGHT section... (See the MSDN  documentation for some support articles
> > on that).
> >
> > Since we are not (yet?) using the VTIMEZONE objects for creating new 
files,

What do you mean by this statement (what new files)?

> > that does not matter for us now. But for the future we have to decide
> > whether we try to stay outlook-compatible or not..

It's very frustrating that Microsoft has to throw the spanner in the works yet 
again with their lack of compliance with standards.

-- 
David Jarvie.
KAlarm author and maintainer.
http://www.astrojar.org.uk/kalarm
_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim at kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/