On Mo, 2011-04-18 at 09:14 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > The underlying question is this: > * Should PHOTO data be transcoded as part of syncing? This is > necessary at least for case 1 above and might also help with > case 2. > > It could be added, but that leads to further questions: > * How does SyncEvolution decide which kind of PHOTO data will be > accepted by the peer? Resolution, format, ... > * If a photo was transcoded, how will SyncEvolution deal with an > updated photo sent by the peer? > A. Overwrite photo locally: allows updating photos on the > peer, but implies that a potentially higher resolution > version of the same photo gets overwritten when only > some other properties were modified. > B. Always preserve local photo data: adding a photo on > the > peer would be possible, but not updating it. > > Possible answers: > * Only transcode if it is detected during a sync that photos had > problems. > * Hard-code certain profiles, match them to DevInf reported by > device (based on max item size, for example). > * Preserve local photo data if transcoding was necessary.
Unsolved question, moved to bugs.meego.com: https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17345 -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
