4 ms·
I’ll defend this practice. It’s the only way of knowing for sure that you’re transmitting exactly the information you intend to send. Even copy/paste often pick
by wilde 8y ago
I’ll defend this practice. It’s the only way of knowing for sure that you’re transmitting exactly the information you intend to send. Even copy/paste often picks up other stuff you don’t intend.
- prepend 8y agoIt the only, but maybe the easiest. Having a data review process with automated integrity, confidentiality, and quality checks is not terribly difficult. But having a prototocol to export the pdf to csv is also dead easy for confirming only the data relevant is included. ASCII is just as “easy” as scan, but it requires training clerks to be data-oriented rather than document.
- paulryanrogers 8y ago_ugh_ if only CSVs were standardized sooner and more completely. There are many encoding, delimiter, escaping and truncation conventions to deal with in real world data.
- prepend 8y agoDefinitely. They are better than PDFs, but still have lots of room for improvement.
- jellicle 8y agoBut as the public is typically entitled to that "other stuff" information as well, you're just obstructing.
- lostlogin 8y agoPDFs can and do send non visible data that wasn’t intended to be transmitted.
- TheCoelacanth 8y agoIt's more of a way to prevent transmitting any easily accessible data at all. Using a human-auditable but still machine-readable format like CSV is what should be done.
- akudha 8y agoThere are other ways to ensure this. Even with your own logic, it would make sense then to send both the Excel sheets and scanned PDFs of the Excel sheets, isn't it? It would be super comical though