ScheduleWorld

it would be nice if free busy info could be based on a combination of selected calendars instead of just per-calendar

Good suggestion. Added to the project plan.

Cheers.

This would be really great !

Agreed! This is a MUST have IMHO. Also it should be possible to determine whether 3rd party viewers can access full free/busy appointment details, or just the free/busy times. Ideally this could be controlled per-calendar AND per-subscriber. Google Calendar already lets you do this for internal google calendars, but it doesn't let you reshare an external calendar streaming from a URL :-(

Following on from the above, I just noticed that the .ifb URLs SW provides actually already strip out event details and only provide free/busy times, which is great as a default.

However, if I wanted select people to be able to not only busy-search me, but also see the details of each event causing me to be busy, and I didn't want them to have to sign up to SW just to achieve that, could I do that? I wouldn't want to give them public webDAV access, since that would be read/write and would prevent me from using password-protected webDAV. Or would I have to create another SW account, and share it read-only with that? But I see a comment in the sharing window 'For the moment, other users can only sync this calendar if you grant read/write', so even that wouldn't work yet. Is there another way?

Again, I can do this already in Google Calendar with internal google calendars, but not external streams e.g. from fbCal.

Thanks!

webDAV is read-only. Perhaps that's an option?

Cheers.

MarkSwanson wrote:

webDAV is read-only. Perhaps that's an option?

It is?! I thought the whole point of webDAV was to enable read/write:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webdav

or are you simply saying that SW doesn't support the write side of webDAV yet? Thanks!

SW doesn't support webDAV write.

Cheers.

MarkSwanson wrote:

SW doesn't support webDAV write.

Gotcha. Out of sheer curiosity, is it on the roadmap at all, and does SW currently support anything other than straight-forward HTTP GET? Thanks!

It's on the roadmap with no ETA.

HTTP GET only is supported.

Cheers.