[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Signature Areas
How would this proposal handle XMLDSIG for security of digital signatures? ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:29:39 -0800 >Jason, >The text for "G" is in the <p> element, but the table for the signature stuff >would not be. The table *should* be outside of the <section> and <layout> >structure of the document. > >I am troubled about a Signature block element -- it seems too presentational in >nature for my taste. I am more attracted to one or more inline elements, My >objective is to create XHTML markup that can be re-formatted into XSL-FO (for >conversion to PDF), so I think the key is to identify the text strings that are >to be used by that XSLT to create the FOs representing the "signature block" -- >I think this is an important objective to have because it keeps us "honest" as >we create a "logical" markup language using a presentation-oriented markup >language as its foundation. > >Some inline signature related elements coming to mind follow, which I'm sure can >be improved, but here goes: > > a. <signature-party> - holds the name of a party signing the document > b. <signature-date> -- holds the date of the signature > c. <signature-intro> -- holds text that introduces the signature area > d. <signature> -- holds the image of the actual signature > >Now, I assume and accept that there will be content in the XHTML file that is >irrelevant to the XSLT creating the FO/PDF for the contract. A table in the <p> >within the <section> would always by formatted as part of the contract. A table >outside of the <section> element would not be identity-copied, although it would >be accessed for its inline signature elements. > >My view necessitates that preamble text (and postscript text) for the contract's >sections is to be so identified -- I proposed a generic <layout> element, but >it'd certainly be alright to use element names for each layout area, eg footnote >text, header text, footer text, and others as needed. This yields something >like: > > <instrument> > <running-header/> > <preamble/> > <section/> > <postscript/> > <running-footer/> > </instrument> > >Thanks, >John > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jason Harrop [mailto:jharrop@speedlegal.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 8:45 PM >>To: 'Legalxml-Econtracts' >>Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Signature Areas >> >> >>So John, for your XHTML model, that's a SignatureBlock element in <p>, >>or just a table element in <p>? >> >>Peter, i'd be interested in your views. >> >>thanks >> >>Jason >> >> >> >> >>John McClure wrote: >>> Hey Jason, >>> I thought youmight get a grin out of that... The answer has to be yes, the >>> author would need to create a <section> for that content. I owuld agree that >>> it's likely not a usual practice, but in order to be labelled "G", >>then yes it >>> must be a <section> as part of the doc outline. Note that doing so, the user >>> expects that the Signatures block would be listed in any generated table of >>> contents (navigation list) for the document, something that wouldn't >>be done if >>> the content was not located in a <section>. >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Jason Harrop [mailto:jharrop@speedlegal.com] >>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 5:52 PM >>>>To: 'Legalxml-Econtracts' >>>>Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Signature Areas >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi John >>>> >>>>Nice to see an example document :) >>>> >>>>Presumably you/Peter would encapsulate the signature blocks within item >>>>G, since it appears to be the authors intent that conceptually, they >>>>form part of the grammatical para in item G? >>>> >>>>thanks >>>> >>>>Jason >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>John McClure wrote: >>>> >>>>>Here is a simple 3 page lease that captions the signature area of a contract >>>>>consistent with the numbering of its preceding clauses. This is not a common >>>>>practice, but I wanted to share that it does occur. My proposal to >>>> >>>>identify just >>>> >>>>>the specific signature text using an inline element, would not lead to the >>>>>concerns that arise from trying to markup a signature area when it >>>> >>>>occurs within >>>> >>>>>a clause. >>>>> >>>>>http://www.aa.psu.edu/stulife/housing/sample_lease.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the >>>> >>>>roster of the OASIS TC), go to >>> >>> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_w >> orkgroup.php. >> >>> >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the >> OASIS TC), go to >> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_w >> orkgroup.php. >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the >OASIS TC), go to >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_w >orkgroup.php. >> >> >> > > >-- > >Jason Harrop >CTO, SPEEDLEGAL >jharrop@speedlegal.com > >Melbourne >Mob +61 (0)402 02 66 34 >Tel +61 (0)3 9670 0141 >Fax +61 (0)3 9670 0142 >www.speedlegal.com > >SmartPrecedent(R) software >The most intelligent way to create documents > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the >OASIS TC), go to >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_w >orkgroup.php. > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]