I've looked at this again and here's a couple of things I don't like in this algorithm:
* Throwing away the data in the last step. I am very unhappy about ignoring good event information, even though it does not contain explicit UIDs. * No reliance on URL property of vevent. IMHO, vevent is used with a URL -- the link to the actual event page. Maybe that could be another implicit UID? What are your thoughts on this, folks? :DG< On 7/3/06, Dimitri Glazkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I read the spec correctly, yes, UID is required for the VEVENT component, which means that UID is required for hCalendar. Okkayy... So, here's another stab at the implied algorithm: * if UID is specified, use it * otherwise, if id attribute is specified, construct full URL with fragment identifier and use it as UID * otherwise, if only one vevent present in document, use document URL as UID * otherwise, only accept the first vevent with document URL as UID and discard all others? :DG< On 7/3/06, brian suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I stand corrected. > > In section 4.6.1 Event Component, of the RFC it lists which properties > are optional, and UID is in that list. That is what i cited in the last > email. > ; the following are optional, > ; but MUST NOT occur more than once > > class / created / description / dtstart / geo / > last-mod / location / organizer / priority / > dtstamp / seq / status / summary / transp / > uid / url / recurid / > > Although it doesn't list which items are required. It does seem a bit > silly to have an event without a dtstart. So i guess there needs to be > some interpretation about the intention of the spec. Since the portion > of the spec where REQUIRED is found is closer to the actual definition > of UID, i would assume the authors intended that UID be required. > > Anyone disagree? > > This could then change the steps of how to build an implied-UID. > > -brian > > Marko Mrdjenovic wrote: > > Brian, > > > > I said that one needs to be specified if it's required. The RFC says > > this in section "4.8.4.7 Unique Identifier": > > > > Conformance: The property MUST be specified in the "VEVENT", "VTODO", > > "VJOURNAL" or "VFREEBUSY" calendar components. > > > > I think the important thing is to make hCalendar as importable but to > > keep it as human friendly as possible. The spec should not require a > > UID but if it's required it should be recommended to the converter how > > to create one. > > > > Regards, > > Marko Mrdjenovic > > > > brian suda wrote: > > > >> I like these steps and i'm pretty indifferent on HOW the implied-UID > >> value is formed, i just wanted to point out that fragment identifiers > >> are not globally unique, we'd need to add more to it, where/what gets > >> added isn't important. Either behind an '@' like the recommendation, or > >> the plain URL, it doesn't really matter to me. > >> > >> Marko Mrdjenovic suggested that we should always create a UID, the RFC > >> says that UID is optional so i'm not sure we should force one to exists. > >> > >> ; the following are optional, > >> ; but MUST NOT occur more than once > >> > >> class / created / description / dtstart / geo / > >> last-mod / location / organizer / priority / > >> dtstamp / seq / status / summary / transp / > >> uid / url / recurid / > >> > >> -brian > >> > >> > >> Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Sorry about that! :) But.. isn't that beside the point? > >>> > >>> The implied UID algorithm could be as follows: > >>> > >>> * if UID is specified, use it > >>> * otherwise, if id attribute is specified, construct full URL with > >>> fragment identifier and use it as UID > >>> * otherwise, if only one vevent present in document, use document URL > >>> and use it as UID > >>> * otherwise, don't specify UID. > >>> > >>> :DG< > >>> > >>> On 7/3/06, David Janes -- BlogMatrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dimitri Glazkov wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 7/3/06, brian suda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> For example, > >>>>>> http://events.example.com/#123 > >>>>>> would become > >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>> > >>>>> Why not just keep it as is, http://events.example.com/#123? > >>>>> > >>>> You can't have "id" attributes that start with a number [1], so you > >>>> would have to create invalid XHTML to imply the URI. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, etc... > >>>> David > >>>> > >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-id > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> microformats-discuss mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > >>> > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> microformats-discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > >> > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > microformats-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > microformats-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss >
_______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
