[GroupDAV] GroupDAV vs. CalDAV

[Julian Reschke]

Art Cancro wrote:
>  >GroupDAV is not a replacement for CalDAV.   
>    
>  ...in your opinion.  The last time this meta-discussion took place, it 
> was discovered that there is no official position on GroupDAV's 
> relationship to CalDAV, since the various implementors of GroupDAV have 
> different goals for it.  
>    
>  Some of us *do* believe that GroupDAV is *absolutely* a replacement for 
> CalDAV, because CalDAV is an over-engineered mess of a protocol whose 
> complexity encourages buggy, incompatible implementations.  
>    
>  The fact that a GroupDAV implementation can be completed in a few days of 
> coding, while a CalDAV implementation typically takes more than a year and 
> still contains compatibility bugs, should suffice as proof that the 
> GroupDAV-as-a-replacement-for-CalDAV approach is *quite* viable.  
>    
>  You're entitled to take a different approach, of course.  But please do 
> not claim that there is a concensus or an official position.  

Interesting discussion :-).

Note from an observer: if you think that GroupDAV *is* a viable 
alternative to CalDAV, you probably should enhance groupdav.org, which 
currently points to a draft that was updated last almost three years ago 
(<http://www.groupdav.org/draft-hess-groupdav-01.html>).

Best regards, Julian