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

[Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>]

John

This was a simple question.

Are you saying that if we jump through the extra hoop of showing the TC how a 
typical XML editing tool might be used with our structural model, and having 
done that, the TC says "yes, using one of those to create a contract is a valid 
use case", then you'll accept the named containers model?

Because if you still won't accept it, you should say so now, and either "put up 
or shut up" as we have done.


Jason


John McClure wrote:
> Bottom-line, if you do wish to press the case for a standard that caters to an
> XML editor, then may I suggest you provide the group an explicit definition of
> the capabilities of such a "User Agent", so that we can all stop the subjective
> guessing game about what is "most suited for use by contract authors" and what
> is not. Such definition, my friend, would be critical to the TC's assessment of
> the  XHTML extensions you've proposed.