[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: 7/22 XHTML 2.0 WD Released
ANNOUNCEMENT ================ XHTML 2.0 WD released yesterday: see http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/ Zoran, Yes, the Word version sent 5 hrs later can be ignored, in favor of the eContracts version I posted. In fact, I suggest that the TC/SC resolve that the document be published using the eContracts markup proposed by the report ! Regarding its rendering by IE, I have now remembered that the .xhtml file extension causes IE to render it as an XHTML stream but, because it uses XHTML 1.1+<instrument>+<section>+<h>+@property markup, that confuses poor IE.... renaming the file with the .xml extension wakes it up, so I will be able to publish the next (final?) version so that it can be displayed by IE with no problems. The "lame CSS support" I spoke of concerned its support of attribute-related CSS selectors -- workarounds are indeed possible. I do understand the other issue you're raising == where to put any markup about the semantics of the contract == but with your permission, let's defer that discussion until we've studied the W3C's latest WD. Regards, John >-----Original Message----- >From: Zoran Milosevic [mailto:zoran@dstc.edu.au] >Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:20 PM >To: John McClure; Legalxml-Econtracts >Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Revised SC Report (in eContracts >Markup), Part 1 > > >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. >> > > >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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]