legalxml-econtracts message

Subject: XHTML 2.0
From: "John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
To: "Legalxml-Econtracts" <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:01:20 -0800
Folks,
This starts a thread for discussion about using XHTML 2.0 as our clause model.
My claim is:

1. Its clause model matches our requirements *adequately*, despite any fluff
it's said to have.
2. We best standardize Modular XHTML modules for signature blocks & other items
as needed
3. XHTML 2.0 will be standardized well-before signficant audiences even read our
documents.

The primary disadvantage of rolling our own to me is that it distracts us from
marking up the information *in* the contract, a task that I know several of us
would like finally to 'get on with'. Whatever you want to call them, legal
obligations or simple events, these are the things that deserve our precious
time. Today's call was certainly testimony to our ability to work together,
however I must conclude after three (?) consecutive calls devoted to the "clause
model", after quite a few previous related skirmishes, that this is but the
beginning of a long series of calls about the design of elegant markup for

	1. tables of contents, though XHTML 2,0 provides a perfectly adequate
	set of "navigation list" elements for this job.

	2. tables, though the HTML table model is used in 99% of markup today.

	3. inline elements , though XHTML has a complete set of useful, known,
	presentation- and linking-related inline elements. We can even discuss
	how a <cite> element is to be written to content within an XHTML 2.0
	contract.

	4. metadata elements, though XHTML very adequately provides for this,
	even now moving to standardize a pointer to RDF metadata about the
	XHTML	2.0 document. This addresses our metadata needs well enough.
	Additionally, the 2.0 draft also explicitly addresses incorporating Dublin
	Core elements, so document indexing metadata requirements are now
	met.

	5. list elements, which apparently are inadequate in XHTML 2.0. But
	there is nothing stopping us from identifying changes to the current
	W3C draft, at the same time that we express our need for a numbering
	element used only within their new <head> element.

Given all this, I shudder at spending many more months of phone calls working
out solutions for problems that are already solved by XHTML 2.0. I truly believe
that the focus of our energy should be on developing the metadata about the
language of the contract  -- it's now clear that the industry accepts storing
metadata in an RDF file, so let's be decisive about our direction for the coming
year.

Let's define a few XHTML modules (a Signature Module and an Attachments Module
at least) and several RDF datastreams (one for each event in the "life" of a
contract). Let's standardize 'best practices' on the use of XHTML. Let's create
a standard that is as relevant as possible to the real world happening all
around us.

Basically, I'd like to have a vote soonest on whether the Clause Model
discussions can now be suspended indefinitely, and we now investigate creating
Signature and Attachment Modules for use by XHTML 2.0 datastreams. I think such
work would considerably improve the Requirements document.

Thanks,
John