[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I suspect you're better off with PDF's.
I've run into a company who does this sort of thing and they were very
much of the opinion that data without rendering was at best legally
shaky and that digitally signed, rendered documents were best.
Unfortunately, I can't remember either the name of the company or how
they managed to use XML in this process. (The latter is tricky because
even if you sign the data (XML) and the transformation (XSLT, XSL-FO,
etc.), you still can't guarantee that an engine chosen at random will
produce the result the signer saw.)
-- Ron
Rick Marshall wrote:
> i've been thinking of archiving with xml, but i'm going to stick with
> pdf's for documents at the moment.
>
> the discussion on xlinks, and rendering etc has left me with this problem:
>
> if we archive with xml, what is the legal status of the "document"? eg
> say i archive a document as xml, (an invoice for example) and later
> change the rendering algorithm. now when i print another copy and go to
> court to collect some money the debtor turns up with an earlier rendered
> version and they aren't the same "look". i know and a court would know
> the substance is the same, but would i have a problem with my record
> keeping because the format that people read can change? it's an
> integrity issue. and how do auditors cope? or are they solving the
> problem by developing audit standards in the xml accounting stuff that
> would make the rendering format inconsequential provided all the content
> was rendered (and how would they know that - if say i left out a
> discount in a later rendering, but it was in the oriiginal?)?
>
> i understand this is a country by country issue, but is it being
> considered anywhere?
>
> rick <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
