[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Postel's law, exceptions

• To: Bob Wyman <bob@w...>
• Subject: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• From: jcowan@r...
• Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:17:57 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <003801c3dc78$d94e7610$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• References: <40082C96.C8F8AC39@f...> <003801c3dc78$d94e7610$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Revisiting the original XML deliberations - was Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
  • RE: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX Exception Handling
• Next by Date: Revisiting the original XML deliberations - was Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Previous by thread: RE: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by thread: Revisiting the original XML deliberations - was Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread