Comments on: Calendar cross-publishing concepts

By: Extreme Options

Extreme Options — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:43:42 +0000

This is a train wreck waiting to happen. Crossing calendars will lead to some personal info being published publicly, mark my words.

By: Jon Udell on calendaring interoperability | rheetorical questions

Jon Udell on calendaring interoperability | rheetorical questions — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:34:52 +0000

[...] very interesting read about how the user experience of open-standards interoperability has to be thought of [...]

By: Skye Faylor

Skye Faylor — Sat, 01 May 2010 06:40:50 +0000

Hello! Just had to leave a comment. I honestly liked your post. Keep up the phenomonal work.

By: markwilson.it » Calendar synchronisation… shouldn’t it all be a bit easier than this?

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:18:27 +0000

[...] but it’s a one-way process. The reverse process is known as publishing a calendar, either to WebDAV server (which I don’t have) or to Microsoft Office Online, which (in theory) is accessible from anywhere. This works, sort of, as long as I log in with a [...]

By: Pankaj

Pankaj — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:54:13 +0000

the best way to simplify cross platform calendar publishing is to keep the number of systems you employ at a minimum.

one system is axiomatic, Outlook, since almost all of us use to for business purposes. apart from this we need a web calendar – through which we can access our calendar on any internet enabled computer. thirdly, we need to be able to access our calendar on our mobile. these three calendars should be kept in automatic synch and preferably should also be sharable with our team mates.

there are many all in one solutions which let you access you calendar online, on your mobile, synch it with your Outlook calendar, AND also share your calendars. for example we use Hyper Office

in conclusion, the fewer the systems the lesser the clutter.

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:44:57 +0000

Hmmm. Thought-provoking, Jon. In 1911, Alfred North Whitehead said “Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.” It looks like we’re going backwards.

By: clemensuz

clemensuz — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:14:45 +0000

Jon, I’ve been trying to follow your instructions… but I’m still not able to subscribe, from google calender, to a calendar which I’ve published to Office Online. Maybe I’ve misunderstood your post here. Were you ever able to figure that out?

By: fresh wordpress installation » Simple and automatic services

fresh wordpress installation » Simple and automatic services — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:22:24 +0000

[...] trying to figure out which technologies will or won’t be adopted. I mentioned this idea in a discussion of calendar cross-publishing, where I enumerated the numbingly long list of concepts I had to understand in order to achieve [...]

By: Office 2007: Many ways to share your calendar at News Partner

Office 2007: Many ways to share your calendar at News Partner — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:36:59 +0000

[...] Jon Udell has good blog post about how he shared his Outlook calendar with other calendar services like Google [...]

By: Simple and automatic services « Jon Udell

Simple and automatic services « Jon Udell — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:20:05 +0000

[...] trying to figure out which technologies will or won’t be adopted. I mentioned this idea in a discussion of calendar cross-publishing, which enumerates the long list of concepts I had to understand in order to achieve bidirectional [...]

By: Jon Udell

Jon Udell — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:01:43 +0000

“Yes, during that URL lifetime security is only handled through obscurity of the fully signed URL, but this is in no way anywhere nearly as un-secure as the “private URL” issue you originaly brought up.”

You’re quite right. It’s been a while since I created one of those private URLs, and I neglected to mention the time limit. Thanks for reminding me.

By: Daniel Koffler

Daniel Koffler — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:51:13 +0000

Good post, however your statements about Amazon S3 are somehwta misleading.

S3 does not use link obscurity as a primary means of securing data. While S3 URLs may look like that’s what they are doing, closer inspection of the S3 API reveals that the security model is actually more complex than that.

To generate an S3 URL for protected content, the content owner must sign the request and include the signature in the URL. Without the content owner’s signature, there is no way to access secure content. Furthermore, the signature is time limited, so if as a content owner I sign a URL allowing access to an object I have stored on S3, that URL is only valid for the time period I specify… Yes, during that URL lifetime security is only handled through obscurity of the fully signed URL, but this is in no way anywhere nearly as un-secure as the “private URL” issue you originaly brought up.

By: Andy Davies

Andy Davies — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:48:18 +0000

Just came across this via Digg:

http://www.daveswebsite.com/software/gsync/

By: John Faughnan

John Faughnan — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:55:27 +0000

Ahh, normalizing concepts. I spend my work life in the realm of healthcare, specifically in knowledge representation and interoperability. The phrase “normalizing concepts” conceals a vast ocean of complexity. It was this problem that finally broke Palm Inc.

By: selwyn

selwyn — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:20:57 +0000

Hi Jon, this is a great piece of work and some interesting responses too. We are researching use cases for a group calendaring web service and thus would welcome rants. Its an open source project, before we re-invent the wheel it would be good to hear as many feature and functional requests as possible… though it seems to me that most folk responding to Jons excellent entry here just want outlook to work with google and in turn synchronising with their hand held toys, we will be giving that some thought of course, but would also welcome all kinds of suggestions for a calendaring service. What versions of outlook have folks been using?