Dan Shoop was claiming that "big companies" are using CalDAV right
now,
No, I said they were using iCal. I specifically used that word and
not CalDAV and said it was production ready.
You said that in a conversation talking about the merits of Apple's
iCal Server which is a CalDAV server (the name is somewhat misleading
in that). Your comments in that context were wrong and you are being a
jerk trying to pretend that they were not.
You started talking about WCalDAV which is (very simply put) iCal
with a WebDAV based iCal Server.
Dan that displays some fundamental ignorance of CalDAV. Yes it uses
those two technologies to build on, but your statement is like saying
that since Exchange uses HTTP for communications (for the "Outlook
Anywhere" versions) it is thus is based on open standards (IE: true
from a very narrow perspective, but so misleading as to be a total
misunderstanding or a lie).
There are a lot of layers that are absolutely essential for a shared
calendar server that neither WebDAV or iCal come anywhere near
covering. You are leaving yourself open to weaseling out of this by
putting "(very simply put)", but that does not cut it. That
simplification directly contradicts the whole conversation.
Both iCal and WebDAV are very well understood and production worthy
at this point.
But the whole conversation was about CalDAV, which has a lot more
layers that just those two technologies.
Your comments about CalDAV being an "emerging technology" are
orthogonal to mine.
True, but that just means that yours were pointless to the
conversation, and therefor needed to be shot down.
If you'd stop telling me what I'm talking about it might make more
sense.
I had two ways of interpreting your comments about iCal in the middle
of a iCal Server conversation:
1) You had no idea what you were talking about and were merely trying
to play Alpha Geek.
2) You were trying to derail the conversation by making a misleading
comment about a related technology.
Since I tend to assume that people are not actively evil, I choose
the first option. Are you telling me that I should have chosen the
second?
But at this point I'd agree that this thread has yet to see any merit.
There has been some good points made about limitations in the present
iCal Server and the interface issues/preferences in iCal client (in
10.5).
