If it is UNICODE and not ASCII, it will cause a problem. If you look at the
WPC IG it states what is allowed:
The basic character set of this standard, shown in figure A2, Basic
Character Set,
includes those selected from the uppercase letters, digits, space, and
special
characters as specified below.
A...Z 0...9 ! " & ' ( ) * +
'
- . / : ; ? = " " (space)
An extended character set may be used by negotiation between the two
parties
and includes the lowercase letters and other special characters as
specified
in figure
A3, Extended Character Set.
a..z % ~ @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ ] _ {
} \ | < > # $
Figure A3. Extended Character Set
"Redd" <redbastid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1177343459.793661.78150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I did that and ran 2 files through the ****ts. One fails and writes
> out the original EDI content to the output folder, while the second
> works fine and writes out valid XML.
>
> I examined both files closely but could not find anything wrong with
> the file that failed.
>
> I went to the EDIFECS website and uploaded the file that failed and
> had it tested to see if there was anything wrong with it that I could
> not spot, but it passed all validation with flying colors.
>
> The two files are the same request and only differ in the time and
> date of the request. Otherwise, all the other data is the same.
>
> This is the error that appeared in the event log for the file that
> failed when I ran it through the test you suggested (Note, I've 9'd
> out the sender IDs):
>
> Status re****t details: SRH mybox
> 20070423100948 2
> DEFAULT
> SRM 00000000 00010380 1 5
> 00401 HB09translate
> failed
> 000000000000000000000000010163
> SRE 001041check_grphdr 00000
> 000
> 0
> (msgnr:0 segnr:0)(line:0 pos:147 filepos:147)sender: [][] [9999999999]
> [30][9999999999]\r\nsender: [][] 9999999999][30][9999999999]
>
> I see "HB09translate failed"... But I cannot find any HB09 items in
> the 271 specifications.
>
> Also, file position 147 coincides with element GS08, but the value of
> "004010X092A1" looks just fine to me.
>
> The file that works--that XML validates fine, btw.
>
> The only other thing I can think of is maybe unicode vs ASCII... is
> that a potential source of contention with the accelerator?
>
> Any other ideas?
>
|
