Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Last comments from me on the prelim SCReport

[Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>]

John, I wrote:
> I'll respond to this comment if you propose an alternative model.  You know 
> my concerns with how your <area> elements can be combined in strange ways – that's
> the sort of thing i'm getting at.  But i expect it applies equally to your 
> proposed use of <div>. 

To which you responded:
> To be provided, once I hear your thoughts about (g) and (h), and once I hear 
> the TC’s thoughts about the key use case(s) that we’re after…. You know I think 
> the SC has worked from a perspective heavily tilted towards the ‘user experience’
> during raw text entry of the contract, somewhat ignoring user needs evident
> following exchange of the digital contract from party A to B. Should the TC agree, 
> I’d be delighted to contribute what I can along those lines.

Do you mean to suggest that if the TC accepts authoring contracts using an XML 
editor
is a key use case, then you will accept without further ado the named containers 
model which
Peter and I have proposed, on the basis that it is the model most suited for use by
contract authors?

thanks,

Jason