You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If we can find any evidence people use something more complex than simple XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX or breaking down an IBAN in to smaller units with spaces based upon its legacy components (bank id, branch id if present, account number), then we should include it. Right now I have no evidence.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Some of the evidence is in the original domestic format account number examples, others in the breakdown of fields within the BBAN. So there is evidence.
The next step would be manually processing the evidence that is available in to a presumed preferred output format per jurisdiction, which will likely generate errors, but nevertheless will complete this feature.
If we can find any evidence people use something more complex than simple XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX or breaking down an IBAN in to smaller units with spaces based upon its legacy components (bank id, branch id if present, account number), then we should include it. Right now I have no evidence.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: