Comments on: My Take on Google Calendar - Give Me 30Boxes http://nontrivialexercises.com/2006/04/my-take-on-google-calendar-give-me-30boxes/ happy, healthy, effective online living Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:56:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Otto http://nontrivialexercises.com/2006/04/my-take-on-google-calendar-give-me-30boxes/#comment-50 Otto Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:11:53 +0000 http://nontrivialmatt.dreamhosters.com/2006/04/my-take-on-google-calendar-give-me-30boxes/#comment-50 The other strange thing about calendars via http:// vs. webcal:// is that on a Mac, http:// calendars will get downloaded by the browser and imported one time into iCal. webcal:// URL's get handed off to iCal which then subscribes and will give you the option to auto-update the calendar. Minor but annoying. The actual path part of the URL doesn't need to change, though. The other strange thing about calendars via http:// vs. webcal:// is that on a Mac, http:// calendars will get downloaded by the browser and imported one time into iCal. webcal:// URL’s get handed off to iCal which then subscribes and will give you the option to auto-update the calendar.

Minor but annoying.

The actual path part of the URL doesn’t need to change, though.

]]> By: wulf http://nontrivialexercises.com/2006/04/my-take-on-google-calendar-give-me-30boxes/#comment-49 wulf Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:07:55 +0000 http://nontrivialmatt.dreamhosters.com/2006/04/my-take-on-google-calendar-give-me-30boxes/#comment-49 Having started exploring Google Calendar over the weekend and then, partly due to your article, playing with 30Boxes yesterday, I think I'm tending towards concurring with your conclusion. The Google offering is prettier but, for me, the option of tagging posts might just be what wins it for 30Boxes. Thanks for your review. Having started exploring Google Calendar over the weekend and then, partly due to your article, playing with 30Boxes yesterday, I think I’m tending towards concurring with your conclusion. The Google offering is prettier but, for me, the option of tagging posts might just be what wins it for 30Boxes.

Thanks for your review.

]]> By: Ted Pavlic http://nontrivialexercises.com/2006/04/my-take-on-google-calendar-give-me-30boxes/#comment-48 Ted Pavlic Wed, 19 Apr 2006 01:14:55 +0000 http://nontrivialmatt.dreamhosters.com/2006/04/my-take-on-google-calendar-give-me-30boxes/#comment-48 There's no difference between webcal:// and http:// formats. It's just a different way of writing the URL. As far as I can tell, people use webcal:// for easy browser integration with ICS clients. If you use http:// (and this is especially true for URLs that don't end in .ics), you're depending on a MIME type to kick off your calendar program. In most web browsers that association won't be setup. However, webcal:// can be tied to an ICS client all the way down to the OS. What's interesting is that you cannot subscribe to an ICS calendar in Google without using webcal://. They use http:// in their ICAL links, but they require you to use webcal://... When after all there's no difference. The webcal:// URL just contacts the web server and downloads an ICS file. THE PROBLEM with subscribing to Google calendar lies in the actual ICS FILE format. An ICS file is a text file filled with a special calendar markup language. Google's markup is slightly different than the standard. There are people who have written scripts to convert the Google format to an ICS format. The question is... Is this a bug? You would think it would have to be. Otherwise, why provide the strange format? Personally, I think it's on purpose. I think everything Google does is on purpose. I think it's CLOSE ENOUGH to LOOK like ICAL but strange enough so that they never have to stick to a standard. In other words, I think the ICAL links are going to be used by Google applications ("Google Calendar mobile", for example) to download a proprietary calendar format. There’s no difference between webcal:// and http:// formats. It’s just a different way of writing the URL.

As far as I can tell, people use webcal:// for easy browser integration with ICS clients. If you use http:// (and this is especially true for URLs that don’t end in .ics), you’re depending on a MIME type to kick off your calendar program. In most web browsers that association won’t be setup. However, webcal:// can be tied to an ICS client all the way down to the OS.

What’s interesting is that you cannot subscribe to an ICS calendar in Google without using webcal://. They use http:// in their ICAL links, but they require you to use webcal://… When after all there’s no difference. The webcal:// URL just contacts the web server and downloads an ICS file.

THE PROBLEM with subscribing to Google calendar lies in the actual ICS FILE format. An ICS file is a text file filled with a special calendar markup language. Google’s markup is slightly different than the standard. There are people who have written scripts to convert the Google format to an ICS format.

The question is… Is this a bug? You would think it would have to be. Otherwise, why provide the strange format?

Personally, I think it’s on purpose. I think everything Google does is on purpose. I think it’s CLOSE ENOUGH to LOOK like ICAL but strange enough so that they never have to stick to a standard. In other words, I think the ICAL links are going to be used by Google applications (”Google Calendar mobile”, for example) to download a proprietary calendar format.

]]>