Mailing List Archive

On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 14:37 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> Perhaps this is a stupid question but is there any consideration for
> carddav being added?

Hi Craig,

It's on the radar, and the observant might have noticed various basic
bits and pieces have been added to the Git tree in the road to 0.9.8...

Some more information here, on how far I have progressed towards the
standard:

http://wiki.davical.org/w/RFC_Compliance/CardDAV

That page itself is pretty thin, and the CardDAV standard is itself
still a draft and not yet an RFC, but plans are afoot...

Regards,
Andrew McMillan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://andrew.mcmillan.net.nz/ Porirua, New Zealand
Twitter: _karora Phone: +64(272)DEBIAN
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple. -- Oscar Wilde
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.morphoss.com/pipermail/davical-users/attachments/20091119/0bdee024/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Craig White wrote:

> Perhaps this is a stupid question but is there any consideration for
> carddav being added?

I don't consider it a stupid question. Indeed, I would have asked it
myself.

Gavin

On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:48 +1300, Andrew McMillan wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 14:37 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > Perhaps this is a stupid question but is there any consideration for
> > carddav being added?
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> It's on the radar, and the observant might have noticed various basic
> bits and pieces have been added to the Git tree in the road to 0.9.8...
>
> Some more information here, on how far I have progressed towards the
> standard:
>
> http://wiki.davical.org/w/RFC_Compliance/CardDAV
>
> That page itself is pretty thin, and the CardDAV standard is itself
> still a draft and not yet an RFC, but plans are afoot...
----
I think since Google and Apple already support a working protocol that
the standard is essentially already created but I think you are
currently focused on the permissions model at the moment anyway.

You might want to keep an eye here...

http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-ietf-vcarddav-carddav/

Because you have a rather old draft linked on your wiki page.

I am glad to know that you have an eye on it because I get so much
resistance to LDAP ;-) (and of course the client applications are
all pretty much read only)

Thanks

Craig


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 15:56 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> ----
> I think since Google and Apple already support a working protocol that
> the standard is essentially already created but I think you are
> currently focused on the permissions model at the moment anyway.

You're right, which is why I've added a bunch of support for CardDAV
recently on my way through (e.g.) rewriting PROPFIND. It's still a
sprinkling though, and I need to write something that parses the data on
PUT, and the support for the reports, before I can start saying
'somewhat'.


> You might want to keep an eye here...
>
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-ietf-vcarddav-carddav/
>
> Because you have a rather old draft linked on your wiki page.

Thanks. I've fixed the wiki so it should point there now.


> I am glad to know that you have an eye on it because I get so much
> resistance to LDAP ;-) (and of course the client applications are
> all pretty much read only)

Yeah. Writing into LDAP has never really caught on that well.

Cheers,
Andrew.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com +64(272)DEBIAN
Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.morphoss.com/pipermail/davical-users/attachments/20091119/5ff549fb/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------