Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bob Wyman scripsit: > But, I still have a question. Your service would seem to be > doing what Tim Bray in a recent note suggested should *not* be done. > i.e. you're taking banking-like data and "fixing it" by making it > well-formed. There is no reason to think that Walter's inputs are not well-formed; on the other hand, there is no reason to think they are XML at all. They can be anything that he and his source privately agree on. > Given the desperate need to ensure that documents that > describe potentially high-priced financial instruments are correct in > their content, why doesn't it make more sense for you to kick back the > badly formed documents to their source and ask for clean versions? One reason is the existence of a settlement process. It's cheaper, quite often, to assume all is well, watch for exceptions further down, and correct them by hand. > Also, do you only guarantee that your documents will be > "parseable" or do you also clean up non-conformance to schemas? He knows nothing of schemas. -- One art / There is John Cowan <jcowan@r...> No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter
|
