|
|
|
|
|
|
by Smaug123
599 days ago
|
|
|
It's possible, for example, that they are instead concerned about anyone consuming the data in some automated way, and are trying to protect downstream consumers who fail to sanitise the data correctly conveyed from Companies House to them. This is such an extremely rare type of company name that it might genuinely be reasonable to "throw an exception" when asked for it, even if you are perfectly capable of giving it, when you don't have much trust that your consumer will be capable of receiving it. (The article does suggest there were problems with Companies House originally, but even after fixing them, this kind of consideration may prevail.) |
|
|