[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The differences

To: "Luis A. Navarrete Ramirez" <lnavarrete@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: The differences
From: Adrian Havill <havill@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:29:04 -0400
Cc: imc-vcalendar@xxxxxxx, imc-vcard@xxxxxxx
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/imc-vcalendar/mail-archive/>
List-id: <imc-vcalendar.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:imc-vcalendar-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
References: <>
Sender: owner-imc-vcalendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; ja-JP; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020607

Luis A. Navarrete Ramirez wrote:

Applications support iCalendar should support vCalendar events natively. However, I don't believe that applications that support vCalendar (1.0) will support iCalendar events (vCal 2.0). I know of no implementations of version 3.0 of the standard.

//

Not likely. The recurrence rules, criticial to calendaring, were heavily changed from vCalendar to iCalendar, and I don't see the iCalendar spec attempting to be backward compatible with vCalendar 1.0. So as long as there are no recurrences, very simple (no recurrences, periods, etc) vCalendar/iCalendar objects should be importable/exportable, providing you have a parser that is lenient/forgiving.

References:
- The differences
  - From: Luis A. Navarrete Ramirez

Prev by Date: The differences
Next by Date: Mandatory fields in iCal2.0 and vCard3.0
Previous by thread: The differences
Next by thread: Mandatory fields in iCal2.0 and vCard3.0
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread