- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 22:12:00 -0500
- To: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>, <d.m.steer@lse.ac.uk>
- CC: <kellan@protest.net>
Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > actually if you monitor the calsch mailing list you can find numerous > complaints with iCal; it describes a public activities calendar poorly > (enter skical), its ambigious and horridly complex to parse (enter iptel), > its design precludes security (no solution yet). kellan, thanks for your blast of fresh air about iCal. I think it's safe to say that many of us here have not had real experience with the format and so at least I welcome this kind of information. It seems that RDF will solve a lot of problems you point out with iCal, by providing lots of parsers and easy extensibility as well as the mass of other RDF solutions already available. > i see hope for a rdf calendaring project, as one that would inherently > understand the benefits of the network, and modularity, too tools that > would make iCal (and iTip, iMip, and CAP) much more powerful and simple, > but are precluded by their self-contained, and monolithic designs. Would you suggest that creating an RDF format based on the iCal work is a mistake, or that we should begin converting iCal to RDF and allow the flexibility of RDF to begin to fix the problems of iCal? -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 23:12:30 UTC