[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@reutershealth.com>
No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com
All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter
|
