So how much documented, or undocumented, work would a server
have to do to  
replace Cosmo as a fully functional Chandler sharing server?
 Right now  
the list stands roughly at

  - WebDAV level 1
  - Tickets
  - CalDAV, with the ability to store anything in calendar
sub-collections
  - WebDAV ACLs (planned)

IMO, the best case would be if we could stick with a list of
published or  
publishable items.  Do you think this course is compatible
with that --  
e.g. by publishing this format somewhere?

Lisa

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:27:56 -0800, Morgen Sagen  
<morgenosafoundation.org> wrote:

>
> On Mar 13, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
>> This gets Chandler to be interoperable with other
calendar clients, but  
>> only if Cosmo is used.  It doesn't get Chandler to
be interoperable  
>> with Hula, Oracle server or other CalDAV servers,
or is that still  
>> going to work as it does today?
>
> Yes, I was imagining that when talking to servers other
than Cosmo,  
> Chandler would do what it does today: it would speak
CalDAV to CalDAV  
> servers, and publish XML and monolithic .ics files to
WebDAV servers.
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev"
mailing list
> h
ttp://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev"
mailing list
h
ttp://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev