[Dev] The Chandler/Cosmo sharing format
morgen at osafoundation.org
Tue Mar 14 06:31:49 PST 2006
On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> Sorry to be confusing, I'll try to ask clearer questions and expose
> my assumptions first. Part of what I'm assuming is that not every
> organization will find Cosmo to be the final answer. I'll use
> universities as an example, since that's where we've got a lot of
> awareness of the requirements. Some universities will want to use
> Chandler and will want Chandler sharing to work, yet they'll look
> for a commercial solution, or want use something with edu-specific
> features. Will they be able to?
> The answer to that today is "no", but it's not hard to get to "yes."
> - To be able to use RPI's CalDAV server, it would have to support
> tickets and the ability to share other kinds of collections besides
> - To be able to use Xythos WFS, the universities would only have
> to convince Xythos to add CalDAV support.
> - To be able to use Slide, somebody would need to add CalDAV
> support and tickets.
> What I meant by "stick with a list of published or publishable
> items" is that ideally we could tell the potential organizational
> users of Chandler a short list of free and public specifications
> that a fully-functional Chandler sharing server would have to support.
> How far short of this ideal do we actually fall or plan to fall?
> - CalDAV isn't a standard yet. We keep pushing it though and it
> will get there.
> - Tickets isn't a standard, though at least it's published, and we
> could reasonably propose standardizing it -- it could become an
> Experimental RFC pretty easily if somebody (who, me?) made that
> final push.
> - A custom Chandler format? While that's a publishable spec, and
> it's conceivable that other servers could support a custom Chandler
> format, is it reasonable? Will we actually do the work and publish
> the spec? Will we stick to it and support that custom format for
> release after release in order to be backwards compatible with
> older versions of Cosmo and any other server?
> I guess part of what I'm asking is "what don't I know" about
> interoperability with this proposal and part of it is "what are we
> willing to commit to".
> - Besides the proposed custom format, are there any other non-
> standard pieces that haven't already made it onto our server
> requirements list?
> - Would it be reasonable for us to publish a custom format
> specification? By when?
> - Would it be reasonable for us to keep backwards-compatibility
> with that custom format specification?
> - Is it likely that any other software would want to use this,
> besides servers who need specifically to interoperate with
> Chandler? (If we did something like xCalendar, the answer to this
> might be a nuanced "yes")
Will we share anything besides calendar events? If that answer is
yes, then we need to define a format to share items in. By using off-
the-shelf vocabularies, I think that it is reasonable to believe that
other clients and servers could support the format. I understand
that it will take work to strive for backward-compatibility, etc.
More information about the Dev