Ok. Think i got it. But what about the case i mentioned. Is the behaviour correct in this case?
Regards On Nov 28, 2013 6:19 PM, "Patrick Ohly" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-11-28 at 16:56 +0530, Sachin Gupta wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > > > Not able to understand this clearly: > > "A better test looks at how the server reacts when receiving an update > > where a property is missing that the server currently has: if the > > client > > supports the property, the server should remove its copy of the > > property. If the client doesn't, the server should keep its copy." > > > > If for e.g. TEL property is supported by server but not client, then > > server should remove these fields from its copy? > > No. > > I'm talking about this sequence of events: > > > Server sends to client a new contact: > > N:foo > TEL:1243 > > In the next sync, the client sends back: > > N:foo > ADR:abcd > > What should the server now store? > > Option 1 (client did not send back TEL because it doesn't support it): > > N:foo > TEL:1234 > ADR:abcd > > > Option 2 (client supports TEL, user removed TEL on client): > > N:foo > ADR:abcd > > CtCap provides the information to the server to distinguish between > these two cases. Without it, the server has to guess or somehow know > about the client. > > -- > 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] https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
