After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 762693 - Support detecting and adding CalDAV from an email address (RFC-6764)
Support detecting and adding CalDAV from an email address (RFC-6764)
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 781421
Product: gnome-calendar
Classification: Applications
Component: User Interface
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: 3.26
Assigned To: GNOME Calendar maintainers
GNOME Calendar maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2016-02-25 17:58 UTC by Daniel Aleksandersen
Modified: 2017-04-17 19:32 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: Unversioned Enhancement


Description Daniel Aleksandersen 2016-02-25 17:58:35 UTC 
Where Calendar is now asking for a “Calendar Address”, it should instead ask for “Email or Calendar Address”. 

It’s easier for users to specify their email address than to figure out the CalDAV address for their calendar provider. If no email address is input, use the existing URL logic instead. These can exist side by side within the same input field by detecting the user input as either n email address or URL. Should be able to display an error message with “No CalDAV server detected for this email address.”

Calendar servers can be located from an email address using DNS SRV records as described in RFC-6764. Take the domain from the email address and query for SRV records in _caldavs._tcp.example.com and _caldav._tcp.example.com. See attachment #1 [details] in bug #750564 for example gtk code doing these lookups.

SRV records for CalDAV is provided by most of the popular calendar providers. See the table in https://www.slightfuture.com/technote/dns-srv-usage
Comment 1 Georges Basile Stavracas Neto 2017-04-17 19:32:19 UTC 
Let's move this discussion to bug 781421. Thanks for your time.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 781421 ***