RE: [legalxml-econtracts] The CSS issue (was .. Req #106)

["jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

The same issue has arisen in the DSS TC. It is resolved by treating the presentation layer as a transform that is included as part of an XML DSIG digital signature. There have been recent cross-posts to the W3C about the possibility of out-of-signature stylesheets, and responses from Joseph Reagle and others. I can post them but they are quite technical and considered from the point of view solely of digitally signed data. Personally I think the presentation v. structure issue to be subsidiary to the structure and syntax needed for automation. To the extent that automation involves agents and not humans, a presentation layer may be irrelevant.

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Chambers, Rolly" <rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>
Date:  Sun, 20 Apr 2003 18:01:53 -0400

>As one of the authors of the Court Document spec, maybe I can chip in
>something here. It is correct that the Court Document XML spec is not
>particularly concerned about how the XML representation is turned into a
>presentation image. However, an issue has surfaced with the XML Court
>Document spec that is very similar to the one here - whether the XML
>representation of the court document should serve as the "official"
>document of record or whether some presentation image should.
> 
>The problem with using the XML representation as the official document
>is there are many different ways to present it and it is difficult (if
>not impossible) to assure that the presentation used and envisioned by
>the sender/filer will also be the same presentation received and used by
>the recipient.  There are differences in browsers and, I am told, in
>XML-to-PDF applications that makes this a problem whether a CSS, XSL-T,
>or XSL-FO stylesheet is included with the court document as a set of
>"presentation instructions." The idea that the presentation image a
>lawyer sends to a court will turn out not to be the same presentation
>image that the court views is anathema to most lawyers.
> 
>For that reason, the Court Filing TC is now envisioning that the
>official "court document" filed (i.e. exchanged) with a court will be a
>.pdf image rather than (or perhaps in addition to) the "unofficial" XML
>representation. 
> 
>While Jason's description of the approach taken by the XML Court
>Document spec is correct, I believe that approach does not necessarily
>solve the "what gets exchanged" issue that we now are focusing on in the
>context of contract documents. That said, I also believe there is a
>place and a need for a standard XML representation of contracts as long
>as the possible limitations are kept in mind.
> 
>Rolly Chambers
>
>	-----Original Message----- 
>	From: Jason Harrop 
>	Sent: Sun 4/20/2003 8:57 AM 
>	To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org 
>	Cc: 
>	Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] The CSS issue (was .. Req
>#106)
>	
>	. . .
>
>	I think the proper role of our standard is to represent the
>contract in
>	XML, in the same way the Court Document DTD represents a court
>document.
>	 See
>	
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/legalxml-courtfiling/documents/cour
>t_document/index.shtml
>	
>	The Court Document people had no need to be too concerned about
>how the
>	document gets from the XML representation to some presentation
>image,
>	and neither should we.
>	
>
>	. . .
>
>