Hadn't expected this to be come such a "hot topic". I guess I was asking a
contentious question based on what people were saying about the caldav
standard on the list and my own research into DAV servers for small systems.
I don't even pretend to be an expert in these protocols and areas, although
I am someone who is willing and able to pick up technologies as required. I
am thankful for these discussions which have explained the development
strategy much more fully and especially Helge's informative post about the
state of CalDAV.
Kervin, I completely understand the issue of resources, the questions were
really about target markets and what the list thought about them. It seems
my particular market (home user, wanting to set up shared calendar systems
on low resources - setting up large groupware systems not an option) will
have to wait until either:
a) a small (PHP) calendar product supports CalDAV
b) other individual interfaces are written for otlkcon when the caldav
interface is perfected and people have time and inclination for other things
As a point of clarity, I never intended any criticism or FUD regarding
CalDAV or its implementation, I was reporting my (in)experience given my
requirements. I appologise for any concern caused.
Very best regards,
P.S. I use a hotmail address for all public-facing web discussion as spam
protection. Why hotmail? It was one of the first available in 1996 when I
set up my account (before it was bought by Microsoft in 1998/9). I also use
it via Outlook 2003, but didn't know it was WebDAV because it's all hidden
From: Kervin L. Pierre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 February 2006 20:57
To: Matt McNeill
Subject: Re: [otlkcon-devel] Interfaces
It's great hearing everyone's opinion on the proposed calendar access
I think Helge is pretty much correct on the state of the technology. CalDAV
will most likely be completed within months, maybe a lot sooner. We are
already communicating with servers in test since the past few drafts with
minimal changes between drafts. Also most commercial offerings are WebDAV
based, and that seems to be the direction in which things will continue.
Servers which do not support WebDAV will probably lose share to those who
do, so I expect the more popular servers to include, at least WebDAV support
in the future.
Matt McNeill wrote:
> If CalDAV is so far away from being an agreed standard, perhaps
> several years away, shouldn't we be considering an interim interface
> to the most popular 2 or 3 web-calendar applications? Just in order to
> make this great
I appreciate your point of view but my main issue with this statement is
that you are not taking into consideration the resources needed to develop
those interfaces. We could _consider_ interim interfaces, but then what?
:) Someone will have to design/develop/test those interfaces.
Probably several hundred man-hours per interface depending on the protocol's
If we haven't been able to get 1 protocol out the door, would it be
reasonable to consider 2 or 3 more?
> I know and agree that from a standards poit of view what you are doing
> in this development is the right thing, but from a user point of view
> and a take-up point of view it might be worth considering an interim tack.
As mentioned earlier, considering a direction is the easy part. Actually
getting something done is a whole different story. Which brings me to my
point. That unfortunately, the whole argument is moot because we do not
have the resources.
> Keep up the great work,
Thanks for your support. We'll try.
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