| |||||||||||||
Epiphany: Another retreadEpiphany: Another retreadPosted Apr 3, 2012 8:41 UTC (Tue) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206)Parent article: Epiphany: the minimalist GNOME browser
It may ONLY be me, but this sounds like Y A browser from scratch ... do we really need this?
What Linux does desperately need is a Free OpenSource integration of Exchange services in existing browsers and Email clients, ie minimally Email, Contacts and calendar.
Regards, omb
(Log in to post comments)
Epiphany: Another retread Posted Apr 3, 2012 9:14 UTC (Tue) by hadess (subscriber, #24252) [Link]
> It may ONLY be me, but this sounds like Y A browser from scratch ...
> do we really need this?
It was brand new in December 2002:
Epiphany: Another retread Posted Apr 3, 2012 9:34 UTC (Tue) by rossburton (subscriber, #7254) [Link]
That would be evolution-ews for Evolution then (http://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution-ews).
Epiphany: Another retread Posted Apr 3, 2012 13:27 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
But I thought Exchange supported stuff like Internet e-mail, vCard and iCalendar. Standards, in other words.
Epiphany: Another retread Posted Apr 3, 2012 14:41 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Standards which explicitly permit the creation and use of non-standardized extensions. It's worth noting that Mozilla, GNOME, and KDE don't restrict their implementation of those standards to the standardized functionality, and they each have their own notions of how to extend them.
Epiphany: Another retread Posted Apr 3, 2012 16:06 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I suppose that if I had a point to make, it is that people tolerate the non-standard extensions far too easily. I've had to point out to plenty of people that the free/busy functionality of iCalendar does not "require an Exchange server"; it doesn't even require an authoritative server, since RFC 2446 (and 5546) describe peer-to-peer mechanisms for exchanging free/busy information, although I concede that using something like WebDAV/CalDAV is probably more convenient (RFC 2446 is a classic case of something that looks like it was written up from notes on an implementation of an existing product that the vendor wanted certified through standardisation).
Epiphany: Another retread Posted Apr 3, 2012 15:52 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Exchange supports some standards, but the protocol it uses to interact with clients is thoroughly non-standard. For example none of the standards you mention give the server right to wipe data on client device.
|
|||||||||||||