[Ietf-calsify] summary of issues discussed in the jabber session
cyrus at daboo.name
Wed Dec 13 06:34:49 PST 2006
--On December 13, 2006 3:26:52 PM +0100 Reinhold Kainhofer
<reinhold at kainhofer.com> wrote:
> ARGH!!! Why would you do that?
> In my eyes, these frequencies and these BY* rule parts are the most
> uncontroversial of all rule parts. The other rule parts create the
> problems for us.
> In KDE we have a dedicated alarm application (not for event reminders,
> but for all sorts of things that you want to be reminded of) that makes
> available all alarms as events to applications that use iCalendar format.
> You can't imagine how useful that stuff is. E.g. Set a quick alarm to
> remove the cake or the pizza from the oven in 15 Minutes. That alarm
> will automatically appear in your calendaring app (that watches the
> iCalendar file).
> Or set an alarm that reminds you every 1.5 hours (=90 minutes) to take a
> break from the computer. I also like these alarms to show up in my
> calendar (which is a completely different application, so we need to
> have a format for data exchange, which is exactly iCalendar).
Using a VALARM inside a VEVENT isn't sufficient? Just wanting to know why
you choose to represent 'alarms' as events...
More information about the Ietf-calsify