https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481166
--- Comment #2 from Flossy Cat <flossy-...@online.de> --- (In reply to David Jarvie from comment #1) > By design, KAlarm stores all its alarms in VEVENT, and in order to provide > all its functionality it uses quite a few custom properties in VEVENT and > VALARM. Perhaps I have a wrong understanding of the function of KAlarm within the KDE ecosystem. I perceive it as a reminder application which would serve well – and with better functionality than »korganizer« (or the patch by David) ever provided – as substitute for the notifications (see https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481024). (Better, namely: the preview of impending alarms, the overview over recent alarms, command alarms, … more) IMHO it is neither a substitute for a calendaring application nor a todo list. What is your intended usage of KAlarm? > Giving full support to VTODO would be outside the current scope of > KAlarm, whose purpose is to provide reminders. VTODOs contain VALARMs with the exact same syntax and semantics as VEVENTs. (There are only minimal differences between VTODOs and VEVENTs anyhow – they are practically fraternal twins. The only differences coming readily to my mind are "transparency" and "dtend" for VEVENTs and "percentage completed" and "due" for VTODOs – all seemingly not used by KAlarm anyhow.) (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545#section-3.6.1 and https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545#section-3.6.2) I only suggest to honor the reminders in the VALARMs of both ICAL-entry-types to make KAlarm an universal reminder for all ICAL-entry-types having reminders i.e. VALARMS … > Adding todo functionality > would almost certainly need significant user interface changes in addition > to logic changes. That is not my intention at all – only reminders. > It might be possible to add import (read-only) support for VTODO. This would > need to convert them to VEVENT. I don't know how practical this would be, > and I don't think the work would be justified unless there was evidence that > people would actually use that facility. Trivial. The only difference between VTODO and VEVENT for the purpose of KAlarm is, if the time period is not given via DTSTART and DURATION (identical for both) but by start and end time, then for the end time * VTODO uses DUE * VEVENT uses DTEND (Actually users knowledgeable about the ICAL format have an unexpected nasty surprise if KAlarm handles only alarms of VEVENTs because they are for many purposes completely interchangeable with VTODOs …) > Of course, if you wanted to > implement something yourself along these lines, I'd be happy to consider > incorporating that into KAlarm, and could point the way to how to go about > it. Point me ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
