MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
legalxml-courtfiling message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Second unresolved agenda item
From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <>
To: "'Cusick, James'" <>, , Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee <>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:00:32 -0400
I concur with James. The use of fragment
imputes the possibility that the Message might be non-wellformed and not valid
to the doctype.
I do not believe that either is the
inference that is desired.
Regards,
Don
Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781
From: Cusick, James
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:48
AM
To: ;
Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Second unresolved agenda item
Just a question on the use of the term
"fragment", do we mean to suggest that an incomplete XML document
could be transmitted? would that be ill formed? jc
From: John M.
Greacen [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:47 PM
To: Electronic Court Filing
Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Second unresolved agenda item
Please post your comments by nest Tuesday on the following
architecture for the Court Filing Blue message structure proposed by Scott
Came.
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC
HCR
505-289-2164
505-289-2163 (fax)
505-780-1450 (cell)
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
