Feature Request: Add external iCalendar support

[cniesen]

Often a person has multiple calendars (e.g private etesync calendar and office360 work calendar) that they may need to see in a single view. This feature request would allow the user to add an iCalendar to their secure etesyc-web calendar without having to compromise the security of their etesync calendar.

Possible user scenario:

• User selects "Add iCalendar" icon/link.
• Add iCalendar modal displays the following fields:
  • Calendar Title [text field]
  • URL [text field for ics url]
  • Color [shows list of colors]
  • Store in browser (don't enable this on shared computers) [check box to enable HTML5 Web Storage of url]
  • OK/Cancel buttons
• iCalendar events are displayed in line with etesync events (different colors)
• Calendar title is displayed on the side with a show/hide toggle button/link/icon and a remove button/link/icon

[cniesen]

This issue is similar to #18, although this request does not combine the two calendar but keeps them separate in their own system. It just displays them in one view.

[tasn]

I think this is better than #18 indeed. This would never allow editing/creation though, just access publicly available resources. Implementing full DAV is definitely out of scope.

[cniesen]

Right. Although DAV might be a nice feature, too. Basically a DAV client functionality that still keeps the calendars separate but allows updating. That still wouldn't replace the iCal support and should be a separate feature request.

[tasn]

Sure, but implementing this one is trivial, the other one is so much work that it's likely it would never be done. :)

[betsythefc]

I currently use 3 different calendar apps for syncing: Etesync, DAV5x and ICS5x. It would be really cool if part of etesync let me sync normal DAV and ICS calendars, and synced those URLs between the android and web client, so I only need the one app, and the one web client.

[tasn]

Yeah, I agree it would be nice. Though DAV is immensely complex, so not sure it's worth it... ICS is much easier and I think DAV servers expose the data in a way that's similar to ICS (exactly the same?) so we can probably at least have one-way (read-only) DAV feeds, which should be enough for many use-cases.

In summary: not sure full-blown DAV is worth it.

[betsythefc]

For my use case, read only ICS/DAV is just fine.

Thanks, Bryce McNab Sent from ProtonMail mobile

-------- Original Message -------- On Nov 4, 2019, 22:47, Tom Hacohen wrote:

Yeah, I agree it would be nice. Though DAV is immensely complex, so not sure it's worth it... ICS is much easier and I think DAV servers expose the data in a way that's similar to ICS (exactly the same?) so we can probably at least have one-way (read-only) DAV feeds, which should be enough for many use-cases.

In summary: not sure full-blown DAV is worth it.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[tasn]

I bet it's the same for most people too...

[andreas1107]

Hi there, I'd like read-only ICS-pulling feature as well.

[francois072]

I would also like this feature.

[steliyan]

Any updates on this?