On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:36:11PM -0800, Vladimir A. Butenko wrote: > Speaking of CAP, it's not suitable for today groupware in any case. I do > not know if they have changed that, but what about calendaring items with > attachments? It's quite a common thing when you send an invitation with an > attached document (agenda, illustration, etc.) Neither CAP, not > "HTTP/WebDAV" methods handle this very common situation.
CAP is just a store providing access to iCalendar objects in useful ways. iCalendar does support attachments: ATTACHMENTS - - An iCalendar object can include references to Uniform Resource Locators that can be programmed resources. And CAP does support inline attachments. > CAP will never fly, because while it provides certain > advantages over the HTTP-based "protocols", it does not allow clients to do > operations quite common in the real-life groupware products. And those > products do treat calendar (and, for that matter, contacts) storage as > message store. What would those be? CAP looks pretty good protocol to me. Quite easy to implement in server side, with the exception of recurring events (which are left optional though). Client support shouldn't be difficult to do either, all the difficult stuff is in handling iCalendar objects. I don't think CAP has lost anything yet. Do you see a single usable open source (or even freeware) shared calendaring product available for Windows or web? I haven't found any and I know many people who would be interested in such. Please tell if you know one. As long as there's no alternatives I don't think CAP is dead. I'd implement CAP server and a web based client if only my existing projects were in good enough state :)
