On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:13:36 PDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
Dave Peticolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Christopher Browne writes:
> > On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:47:03 PDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
> > Dave Peticolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > Thanks for the links. OFX before 2.0 uses SGML and is not XML-compliant.
> > > However, I believe OFX 2.0 is XML compliant.
> >
> > Might it be an idea to run an SGML normalizer (sgmlnorm) to fix it?
> > Or am I barking up a silly tree?
> I tried running sgmlnorm on an OFX file, but it didn't seem to want
> to put the end tags in the right places. I may not have been using
> it correctly, though.
If you don't have the OFX DTD in your catalog, it's unlikely that
sgmlnorm will have quite the same idea of which tags are
optional/minimizable as is actually the case, so I suppose I'm not too
surprised.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/resume.html
"That's convenience, not cracker-proofing. Security is an emergent
property, not a feature." -- void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
