From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: Re: org mode vs basecamp Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:26:42 +0100 Message-ID: <871wbk4xlp.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> References: <87myuaxk9y.fsf@myhost.localdomain> <877ild4v1s.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87myu9eknl.fsf@myhost.localdomain> <87prz5zin1.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87prz4c24s.fsf@myhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IkcVj-0000HD-9A for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:26:47 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IkcVe-0000A6-Bn for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:26:46 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IkcVd-00009O-Qt for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:26:41 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.186]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IkcVd-00060s-5I for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:26:41 -0400 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f5so120875nfh for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:26:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87prz4c24s.fsf@myhost.localdomain> (cezar@mixandgo.ro's message of "Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:06:59 +0300") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org cezar@mixandgo.ro writes: > Hmmm this idea just hit me : How about using ICS files ? Yes, you can digg its specs here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.txt Then you'll see things like: ORGANIZER:MAILTO:jane_doe@host1.com ATTENDEE:MAILTO:john_public@host2.com which might be added to Org[1] so that an .org file can be exported in .ics and so that this .ics resource can be useful as a shared resource for collaboration. You can already use it like this (i do), but maybe some other keywords (like the two above) would be nice to have. > I am not too familiar with them but I think they pretty much do what I > need !? But the .ics solution still requires that you answer this question: who is able to edit the .org source file(s)? Notes: [1] I'm not sure this as to be native in Org. Maybe an option saying what property of en entry should be exported to a .ics keyword is needed at some point. -- Bastien