I must say I'm rather shocked by this mail.
On Feb 7, 2006, at 11:27, Matt McNeill wrote:
If CalDAV is so far away from being an agreed standard, perhaps several
FUD, its seems more like CalDAV is close to a release, I would expect
it in 2006. AFAIK all major issues are sorted out. But the CalDAV
mailing list is the appropriate place to sort this out.
And still implementing _one_ documented draft is a much better working
basis than implementing 3 self-invented protocols, _especially_ if
those protocols happen to be HTTP based ones.
shouldn't we be considering an interim interface to the most
popular 2 or 3 web-calendar applications?
I wonder how you would select those 2 or 3 web-calendar applications?
Thanks for all the caldav links and webdav links - but in reality most
them are experimental, incomplete, or early-adopter applications at the
This again raises the question which servers you have in mind as a
backend for otlkcon.
It really drove home to me the impression that these DAV protocols
have yet to get major market acceptance as commodity protocols for web
How did you come to this conclusion? Actually almost all "serious"
groupware servers base their open protocols around WebDAV. This even
includes Exchange which has broad WebDAV support, or Oracle which is a
reference implementation for CalDAV.
I know IE has partially supported it for years, but how many
major sites _really_ offer the protocol, I've never used it.
This is rather weird since you are posting from a Hotmail account.
HotMail happens to use WebDAV for all Outlook communication ...
Plenty. Hotmail uses WebDAV for Outlook communication, every Exchange
2000+ installation offers it, Apple iDisk uses WebDAV, Apple Finder has
production WebDAV integration, Apache mod_dav is production quality and
wide deployment since ages, all Linux desktops have great WebDAV
support (Nautilus, GNOME), iCal, Kontact, Evolution all support ics
sharing over WebDAV, GroupDAV/CalDAV servers are all based on WebDAV,
etc etc etc
I know and agree that from a standards poit of view what you are doing
this development is the right thing, but from a user point of view and
take-up point of view it might be worth considering an interim tack.
This only holds true if the server the user wants to use doesn't
support CalDAV. Which makes me wonder what those servers would be.
PS: of course I would also suggest doing the first implemention on the
GroupDAV draft which is easier to implement for servers than CalDAV,
but sufficiently similiar to 'upgrade' the support to CalDAV later on.
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
otlkcon-devel mailing list