|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: <TECH> I65 Repetition Separator
Andy Brunnock asked:
>
> Now another question; under what circumstances should a translator
> reject a document that is still using the old U or X in the I65
> position?
It won't and shouldn't. Whilst it would be an unusual and probably
inconvenient choice of repeat separator, it is perfectly valid according
to the X12 syntax. What the translator would be more likely to reject
was the rest of the following message !
The worst the translator could legitimately do was to either produce
a warning message when processing an ISA which contains U or X in I65,
or add the warning message to the rest of the errors messages that
follow.
To say again: the translator cannot reject it, certainly not at ISA-time,
because although unlikely to be constructive (unless processing entirely
numeric data in which case it could be done depending on which segments
needed to be used and whether U or X was in the segment tags) it *is*
perfectly valid X12 syntax.
A valid example could be a 102 Associated Data transaction which can
easily carry data containing neither a U or X character anywhere in
the message body or envelopes, but which might validly have either
character in the binary data where it is ignored for separator issues.
Jonathan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Allen | | Voice: 01404-823670
Barum Computer Consultants | | Fax: 01404-823671
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
