On 03/04/14 19:33, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 16:01 +0100, Graham Cobb wrote: >> 'SyncEvolution always uses SyncML to communicate with peers. No other >> protocols are supported directly for synchronisation (except the >> internal "local sync" optimisation used when the SyncML peer is on the >> same system). All other protocols (such as ActiveSync, CalDAV/CardDAV, >> Google, etc) are handled indirectly. In these cases, a SyncEvolution >> "backend" is used to allow these servers to be treated as database >> sources and to be made available over SyncML. SyncEvolution can then >> manage synchronisation between any combination of these servers and >> traditional SyncML devices.' > > Can we use the local sync definition above together with this paragraph > to introduce local sync in the terminology section? It becomes a bit > long, but it's important to get this in front of users before anything > else.
It is long, and I am sure it can be improved. But maybe that is the best idea -- at least until someone comes up with a better text! _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
