> Sorry... Another question:
>
> The accounts with no name have:
>
>
>
> Instead of what I would expect as:
>
>
>
> I'm not an XML buff so that may be correct. If not, I'll look into
> that problem as well while I'm at it.
is valid XML; your expectations would be correct for SGML..
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 08:41:15AM -0500, Perry Smith was heard to remark:
> Could you explain that to me?
GnuCash attempts to avoid the "gratuituous" introduction of minus signs,
since that leads to all sorts of programming and presentation errors.
To keep things simple, gnucash asks that everyt
Could you explain that to me?
The documentation (design document) says that the value of an account
is equal to the splits in it plus the sum of all of the subaccounts.
If some are income and others are expenses, I don't see how that can be
true.
The design document also causes me to worry bec
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:31:55AM -0500, Perry Smith was heard to remark:
> So, I'm hearing that an income account can have a child that is an
> expense account. O.k. That seems odd to me but o.k.
These two account types are nearly identical, except for the
labels on the columns :) There's
On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:56:31AM -0500, Perry Smith was heard to remark:
> Sorry... Another question:
>
> The accounts with no name have:
>
>
The above is legal markup for sgml for the below. However, I was
under the impression that XML did not allow this ... not sure ...
> Instead of w
Perry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry... Another question:
>
> The accounts with no name have:
>
>
>
> Instead of what I would expect as:
>
>
>
> I'm not an XML buff so that may be correct. If not, I'll look into
> that problem as well while I'm at it.
That's certainly legal XM
Sorry... Another question:
The accounts with no name have:
Instead of what I would expect as:
I'm not an XML buff so that may be correct. If not, I'll look into
that problem as well while I'm at it.
On Jul 23, 2004, at 9:01 AM, Derek Atkins wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes:
Hey, one more question...
Should the creation of accounts with null names be allowed in the first
place? If they are, then we will always have a problem going to the
current postgres db spec because the accounts table does not allow null
names. So, or or the other needs to be changed.
Perry
O
Derek has it correct. There are multiple accounts called "Fidelity
Plus". One is a top level assert account with stocks below. Another
"Fidelity Plus" account is a child of Interest and of type expense.
So, I'm hearing that an income account can have a child that is an
expense account. O.k.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:11:56AM -0500, Perry Smith was heard to remark:
>>
>> When gnucash imported this, it created a sub account under "Interest"
>> called "Fidelity Ultra" and Fidelity Ultra has a subaccount with no
>> name. I can see this in t
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:11:56AM -0500, Perry Smith was heard to remark:
>
> When gnucash imported this, it created a sub account under "Interest"
> called "Fidelity Ultra" and Fidelity Ultra has a subaccount with no
> name. I can see this in the xml as well as the Accounts window. There
P
I'm going to move this back to devel.
This is all making pretty good sense now. The xml file agrees with the
accounts window which agrees with the data structures I'm looking at
with gdb, and I found the original transaction in both Quicken and the
qif file. A number of questions have come up
12 matches
Mail list logo
