On Fr, 2011-09-09 at 16:20 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 10:25 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Fr, 2011-09-02 at 09:56 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > Is there any reason to refer to "peers" here instead of "services"? > > > http://syncevolution.org/documentation/compatibility > > > > Peers also includes things like mobile phones, services doesn't. That's > > the main reason. Feel free to make this more readable. > > > > That such peers work is not documented well (ehem, at all?) on the page, > > though. There is only the Wiki pages side bar which lists pages tagged > > appropriately. > > And what does it mean by "indirectly" synchronizing data? Is that > something people are likely to be interested in?
What I meant are combinations like "Evolution <SyncEvolution> Google <SyncML/ActiveSync> 'some mobile phone or Windows PC'". The page is only about the compatibility between peers that SyncEvolution directly talks to (Google in this example), but not about the involved parties that SyncEvolution doesn't even know about (the Windows PC). Such combinations are indeed relevant for users, but documenting them would be a lot of testing and writing work. Therefore the web page intentionally focuses on the part that involves SyncEvolution. That's what the first paragraph is supposed to mean. -- 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
