Proposal: Add Optional Icon Support for To-do Items #1243
-
MotivationThis proposal introduces an optional
This feature is purely cosmetic and local, designed 8000 to improve the frontend experience while retaining full RFC5545 compatibility. RFC5545 CompatibilityRFC5545 (
This is conceptually similar to how Home Assistant allows customization of entities (e.g., Use Case Examples1. Home Assistant Native UI (To-do Panel)
2. Automations & Notifications
3. Assistive Technologies
4. Future Integrations
ProposalExtend the current to-do item structure with an optional YAML: - summary: Brush teeth
icon: mdi:toothbrush JSON: {
"summary": "Brush teeth",
"icon": "mdi:toothbrush"
}
Benefits
Considerations
ConclusionThis small addition brings significant value in accessibility, inclusivity, and usability — especially for families, schools, and neurodivergent users. It complements RFC5545 by offering richer context locally, without compromising interoperability or compliance. Looking forward to your thoughts and suggestions! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 3 comments 4 replies
-
This seems pretty reasonable to me, for what its worth, Outlook adds icons to events/todos if the title contains certain words. Its purely cosmetic and I don't think those icons are exposed via iCal (keeping the RFC separate from vendor specific "features"), there are definitely integrations out there that could benefit from this (as an added feature). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'll point out that we can already today put emojis in the item name, images in the description, and mdi icons in the description. So you've got a few options already. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I am not in favor of this proposal. The integrations mentioned (e.g. Google, Grocy) don't appear to support icons as far as I can tell. It's also not in rfc5545 nor do i see any custom extensions for supporting icons. Adding emojis in the description is already supported as shown in the other comment and meets the requirements. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
OK, I did more digging and there is an extension to the RFC to support images:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7986.html#section-5.10 -- however, I don't think it is a good fit here and it feels fairly complex to try to use for icons.
Somd detail: It can either be a
URI
value type orBINARY
value type with an encoding.Example:
While you could force icons into this format, its not very general and exportable, and trying to support image serving for indivudual events seems beyond the scope of what we want. (e.g. likely needs new APIs beside websocket)