Re: [Evolution-hackers] Calendar Publishing Bounty Questions

[Gary Ekker <gekker novell com>]

On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 00:56 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 08:05 -0700, Gary Ekker wrote:
>  
> > So the question is, do we require the ability to publish an HTML file to
> > any given URI, or should we just support the phpicalendar interface for
> > this functionality? If we want to support publishing an HTML file
> > natively, does anyone know a simple way to convert ical to HTML?
> > 
> I think we should publish the .ics file as it is. That would cover more
> setups than relying on phpicalendar.
> 
Okay, i'll do that, with the option of publishing to phpicalendar for
those that want to, since this was mentioned specifically in the bounty.
> > 
> > Also, when publishing calendar events, do we want to automatically
> > remove Private and Confidential events, or just Confidential ones? any
> > thoughts on this?
> > 
> hmm, I guess you would password-protect your calendars. If we remove
> events when publishing calendars, some users that want to get to their
> private calendar via webcal might be upset. OR maybe a configuration
> option?

I don't care here. It would be easy to strip these out per a config
option, or do it automatically, or do nothing at all? Anyone feel
strongly one way or the other?

> > 
> > The rest of my questions are UI questions:
> > 
> > For the configuration of publishing, my thoughts are to take the
> > existing config for Free/Busy Publishing, make it Calendar Publishing,
> > and then have set each URI to either Free/Busy or Calendar. I display
> > the ESource list there to select which calendars to publish to the URI,
> > should I display another list adjacent to it for the user to select
> > which if any Tasks they want to publish with their calendar? (by the
> > way, if you publish the tasks with the calendar, phpicalendar displays
> > them nicely.)
> > 
> what about just using the same tree for both calendar/tasks? That is,
> the config page could be called 'Calendar and Tasks publishing', and be
> generic to work for both.

This would only work assuming that the ESources are the same for both
Calendar and Tasks. I'm not sure this would be the case. It would be a
fairly funky UI to display both Calendar and Task trees. I could just
show the Calendars, with a checkbox to include tasks, and then include
tasks if they have the same relative URI. Thoughts anyone?

Thanks in advance for your input.

-Gary