David Harrison wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:51:16 -0700, David Harrison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me do a rewrite and get back to you.
Here is the other page on depreciation schemes
David, good stuff.
I updated the web pages with the new text, plus some modifications I
made, take a look and
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I fully intend to have online communication, in both directions, it's just
that offline is easiest to create first.
:-)
*nods*
2. Pilot-link can query the GnuCash data file directly using QOF and a
similar map.
Please do not assume that the
Neil,
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I started on this Palm-Invoice saga, the use of an XML interchange file
format was discussed. After looking at the current format, I am having to
discount the hierarchy based on AccountGroup because it cannot be easily
written by
On Friday 29 October 2004 3:36 pm, you wrote:
I'm wondering if we should look at bonobo as the interface between
different QOF applications? This would give us both online and
offline data interchange. I just dont know how much work it would be,
as I know next to nothing about bonobo.
Well,
Oaf is not a direct dependency, it's an indirect dependency. Gnucash does
not use it, but GtkHtml does (and it's possible that guppi does, too).
But Gnucash doesn't use it directly. Bonobo is similar -- an indirect
dependency, pulled in by the rest of the gnome libraries that we use.
-derek
On Friday 29 October 2004 3:48 pm, you wrote:
While I'm not against this, I'm concerned that it will add more code
to gnucash that may not be used much. Perhaps it will. I don't know.
But I'd like to make as few changes to the gnucash xml data file
format as possible.
It's more of a format
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 04:48, Neil Williams wrote:
The main difference is that I would like to use the XML for data interchange
between QOF applications and to make the format more like a simple bag than a
tree:
bag vs. tree isn't really the problem, is it?
What's wrong with your palm
On Friday 29 October 2004 5:15 pm, Josh Sled wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 04:48, Neil Williams wrote:
The main difference is that I would like to use the XML for data
interchange between QOF applications and to make the format more like a
simple bag than a tree:
bag vs. tree isn't really
Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday 29 October 2004 3:48 pm, you wrote:
While I'm not against this, I'm concerned that it will add more code
to gnucash that may not be used much. Perhaps it will. I don't know.
But I'd like to make as few changes to the gnucash xml data file
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:59:29 -0300, Jon Lapham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David, good stuff.
I updated the web pages with the new text, plus some modifications I
made, take a look and let me know what you think. You may need to
reload the pages to clear you cache to see the changes (I had to
David Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The way that we have made the distinction between personal and
business makes this a difficult definition. On the personal side,
your definition is correct. On the business side it's not.
Perhaps we need two different concepts guids, one for personal
Derek Atkins wrote:
David Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The way that we have made the distinction between personal and
business makes this a difficult definition. On the personal side,
your definition is correct. On the business side it's not.
Perhaps we need two different concepts guids,
Jon
Jon Lapham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Uh, Derek, you are joking, right? This issue was brought up in the
beginning of this thread by David. But, I'll put the links in again.
http://www.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/2003-August/009760.html
Derek Atkins wrote:
Ok, I know this comment will bite me when I run for president in
20 years, but I flip-flop! :)
Honestly, tho, I was mostly joking. But it does sound like we want
somewhat separate text for personal vs. business in this area.
Perhaps we need separate sections/chapters
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:30:46 -0300, Jon Lapham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I think it is better to be accurate/complex than simple/wrong.
So, I changed the definition to your ...expensing capital purchases
over time
Just nit-picking, but shouldn't it be Depreciation is the accounting
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:39:28 -0300, Jon Lapham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Derek Atkins wrote:
Ok, I know this comment will bite me when I run for president in
20 years, but I flip-flop! :)
Honestly, tho, I was mostly joking. But it does sound like we want
somewhat separate text
16 matches
Mail list logo
