Re: gnomecal/evolution vs gnome-pilot

[brian moseley <ix maz org>]

On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Trever Adams wrote:

> I believe the GnomeCal format currently keeps a
> timestamp on the record allowing it to say if it is new
> or not.  Why not add another line that shows that the
> record has been deleted.  After a decent amount of time,
> say one week, or first sync, trash the record.  I do not
> believe in CRUDE hacks just to do syncing... and my
> suggestion may be crude, but it isn't totally insane
> like adding another running process to the calender.  
> GnomeCal is the data store, not the conduit, and it
> should stay that way.  Why do I want another program
> adding more data to my disk?

as discussed on this list a few months ago, this is the
reason that the TOMBSTONE property was proposed for
icalendar. im not sure if the actual proposal made it into
the ical rfc or if its buried in the cap draft somewhere.
nevertheless, its a /much/ preferable method to running yet
another daemon.