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!