> >  with the DESCRIPTION set to the
> > SUMMARY of the VEVENT.
It's a good suggestion. I find evolution also implement it in this way.
> That is a potential gap in SyncEvolution: it doesn't have "alarm
> descriptions" and thus creates/stores slightly invalid iCalendar 2.0
> VALARMs without the obligatory DESCRIPTION.
So if 'SUMMARY' is present and 'DESCRIPTION' of 'VALARM' is absent,
Is it ok to do the assignment?
> No alarm. Yongsheng, can you investigate further?
Ok, I'll do it.

Cheers,
Yongsheng


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ohly, Patrick
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:20 AM
> To: Tino Keitel
> Cc: Zhu, Yongsheng; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [SyncEvolution] Alarms in the calendar: Evolution vs. vcal
> 
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 16:18 +0100, Tino Keitel wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 15:57:53 +0800, Zhu, Yongsheng wrote:
> > > Hi, Tino
> > > I can verify your finding. Below bug entry is used to track this issue.
> > > http://bugzilla.moblin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10458
> > > You could track this issue to find the latest information.
> > > thank you for raising this question.
> >
> > Thanks for caring about this. I think a solution could be to always
> > create an ACTION of type DISPLAY,
> 
> That's what we do now. I just merge Yongsheng's patch.
> 
> >  with the DESCRIPTION set to the
> > SUMMARY of the VEVENT.
> 
> That is a potential gap in SyncEvolution: it doesn't have "alarm
> descriptions" and thus creates/stores slightly invalid iCalendar 2.0
> VALARMs without the obligatory DESCRIPTION.
> 
> I'm not sure whether this really is a problem in practice. Evolution
> doesn't seem to care I assume, otherwise we would expect to have had bug
> reports about it before, which is not the case.
> 
> I'm not sure whether the problem is solved entirely with Mobical.net,
> though. In a simple, relative alarm (15 minutes before event), this was
> sent to the server:
> 
> BEGIN:VCALENDAR
> VERSION:1.0
> TZ:+01:00
> DAYLIGHT;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:TRUE;+02;20110327T010000Z;2010103
> 1T010000Z;;freeassociation.sourceforge.net;Tzfile;Europe;Berlin
> BEGIN:VEVENT
> LAST-MODIFIED:20100401T161612Z
> DCREATED:20100401T161612Z
> CLASS:PUBLIC
> SUMMARY:custom alarm
> DESCRIPTION:custom alarm
> DTSTART:20100401T103000Z
> DTEND:20100401T110000Z
> AALARM:-PT15M;;;custom alarm
> DALARM:-PT15M;;;custom alarm
> END:VEVENT
> END:VCALENDAR
> 
> This came back:
> BEGIN:VCALENDAR
> VERSION:1.0
> BEGIN:VEVENT
> DTSTART:20100401T103000Z
> DTEND:20100401T110000Z
> SUMMARY:custom alarm
> DESCRIPTION:custom alarm
> LAST-MODIFIED:20100401T161623Z
> END:VEVENT
> END:VCALENDAR
> 
> No alarm. Yongsheng, can you investigate further?
> 
> --
> Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
> 
> The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
> I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
> represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
> on behalf of Intel on this matter.
> 

_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution

Reply via email to