W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2002

Re: iCal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:00:43 -0700
Message-ID: <00f001c259ac$62b6f680$790ba8c0@mnotlaptop>
To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, <uri@w3.org>



I believe it does support iCalendar, judging from its publication format.

I know that Outlook/Exchange utilizes iCalendar, but AFAIK they use a
proprietary protocol to publish calendars and integrate with e-mail
(please correct me where I'm wrong), whereby iCal is using HTTP/WebDAV and
(unfortunately) URI schemes (instead of media types), respectively. As a
result, I don't think they'll interoperate in many cases (i.e., I can't
use iCal instead of Outlook to keep up with my corporate calendar

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; <uri@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 5:04 AM
Subject: RE: iCal

I didn't see the link?  As far as I know, Apple supports iCalendar RFC
2445, which is also supported in MS Outlook and undoubtedly many other


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:58 PM
> To: uri@w3.org
> Apple's iCal [1] allows you to publish calendars (using the iCal
> to Web servers and later retrieve them, using WebDAV*. However, they
use a
> non-HTTP URI scheme to denote a calendar - 'webcal'.
> Is this new, and if so, can pressure be put upon the Apple W3C folks?
> is not a small abuse; I fear 'gif' and 'html' URI schemes will be
> behind if we're not careful.
> * They claim it requires WebDAV, but I was able to successfully
publish my
> calendar to a server that only supports PUT (as any REAL Web server
> should). I don't have data yet as to whether they excercise anything
> in DAV...
> --
> Mark Nottingham
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 12:02:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:41 UTC