Am Montag, 14. Januar 2008 16:55 schrieb Thomas Bushnell BSG: > On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 15:52 +0100, Christian Stimming wrote: > > In fact, after thinking about it for a while, your idea with packaging > > libofx without the OFX DTDs sounds even worse for me. I mean, the > > whole point of libofx is processing OFX. Shipping it without that > > feature is like shipping a lib-foo-print package without printing > > functionality. Iff you decide to do this, you should at least rename > > it into something like libofx-noofx or similar. But with the name > > "libofx" you should package only something that can actually process > > OFX data. > > Well, the OFC DTD is still there. That's perhaps not very important?
No, it is not very important. Christian _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
