legalxml-courtfiling — archive

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Second unresolved agenda item

From: Donald Bergeron
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:02:00 -0000

 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)" <[email protected]>
To: "'Cusick, James'" <[email protected]>, [email protected],       Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee <[email protected]>
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

[email protected]

O 937-865-1276

H 937-748-2775

M 937-672-7781 











From: Cusick, James
[mailto:[email protected]]

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]