RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Revised SC Report (in eContracts Markup), Part 1

[Zoran Milosevic <zoran@dstc.edu.au>]

John,

Should we then ignore the email you sent some 5 hours before? I was just
going through it when your new email arrived. This is not efficient for the
readers who try to understand what is happening. 

It is interesting that 'the XHTML file will NOT display in IE because of its
currently lame support for CSS styling of XML....'. This again reinforces my
views that, although it is good that we reuse concepts from XTML for
describing structure of contracts, we really need to concentrate on defining
our own set of concepts needed to describe structure of contracts (and other
documents) - defining structural contract schema as a common denominator for
most contracts. A good alignment of this schema with XHTML concepts will
make it easier to map between XML version of contracts and XHTML which may
be very useful for authoring tools etc. However, such a schema can be used
as a basis for a broader set of capabilities needed for other aspects of
contract management as stated in our chater.

I also feel that the structural sub-group has done good progress so far and
we all need to be involved to help consolidating some existing differences. 

Zoran




> -----Original Message-----
> From: John McClure [mailto:jmcclure@hypergrove.com]
> Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 8:23 AM
> To: Legalxml-Econtracts
> Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Revised SC Report (in eContracts Markup),
> Part 1
> 
> Attached is
> (1) a new version of the report, marked-up using the structural elements
> and
> coding techniques that I am proposing
> (2) the CSS stylesheet and
> (3) a PDF rendition.
> 
> Beware, IE users, the XHTML file will NOT display in IE because of its
> currently
> lame support for CSS styling of XML.... one must either use Mozilla, or be
> happy
> with the PDF.
> 
> I am not planning to update the Word version sent earlier. Materially, I
> have
> modified statement 1.4 because there was a serious error there; nothing
> material
> has changed except 1.4.
> Thanks,
> John
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John McClure [mailto:jmcclure@hypergrove.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:00 AM
> >To: Legalxml-Econtracts
> >Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Part 1, Revised SC Report
> >
> >
> >All,
> >Attached is the first part of my suggested revisions to the current SC
> Report.
> >It would still be convenient for me if a Word version of the current
> draft
> >report could be circulated or sent me directly ... modifying PDF is a
> chore.
> >
> >I'll publish more -- maybe even finish it -- during the weekend unless
> >of course
> >I hear request(s) not to continue. Your comments about its style or
> content are
> >welcomed and appreciated -- either through postings or as corrections to
> the
> >attached file (please use a different color, like firehouse red! ).
> >
> >Best regards,
> >John
> >
> >PS If someone could figure out why this file is poorly layed-out by PDF
> Writer,
> >that would be a big help. Thanks.
> >