XML/HTML allow you to specify how something should be imported, vs CSV which requires manual intervention to prevent annoyances such as 3-16 (a part number) from becoming March 16th in Excel. The formatting controls are a nice bonus. Unfortunately, Excel takes much, much longer when handling HTML, but since it eliminates so many user issues, it's what I prefer. YMMV.

Best,
David Beahm

George Gallen wrote:

But that's not an HTML table...

The HTML table would need <TR>'s & <TH/TD> as well.

We are starting to convert some of our files to XML vs CSV
that THAT's overhead. All that extra room for the tags on EACH
line vs just a header line at the top of the file.

For importing, csv I would think would be far easier than
HTML, or XML for that matter. Guess XML has it's advantages when
you have a record that has hundreds of fields and you only
want to update one or two, that's all you need, aside from that
so what if there are a bunch of ,,,,,, on a line to mean nothing.

George


-- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users

Reply via email to