ext Michael Wyraz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i've spent some time with research on different calendaring
> client/server implementations. I believe that most use proprietary or
> open but very complex protocols (e.g. CalDav) or protocols that are
> restricted to read-only access (e.g. WebCal).
> On the other hand there are some really simple protocols which are not
> dedicated to calendar access (e.g. xmlrpc or json over http).
> So the barrier for a developer of a calendar (i.e. a web calendar) to
> implement a bridge to evoluition is very high.
>
hmm. <shameless rant> I've submitted an open source Apache module
implementation of CalDAV <http://sourceforge.net/projects/modcaldav/>. I
won't argue that it (implementation) is perfect but I'm inclined to say
that CalDAV _is_ pretty simple compared to many other new specs (i.e.
when you don't have to implement the whole http/dav stuff). The only
exception to this may be the iCalendar spec which is probably even too
flexible. Fortunately, there's this, many times forked libical libary,
which we can/should fix. And Evolution is a pretty decent calendar
client as well (although there are some missing features). So with these
constraints, I'll doubt that you could significantly simplify or improve
the situation by creating yet another new spec ;-)
br, jari
_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
