[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues
What do you mean by signature blocks? > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues > From: "Peter Meyer" <pmeyer@elkera.com.au> > Date: Mon, August 16, 2004 7:13 am > To: "Legalxml-Econtracts TC" <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Hi folks, > > Some points on XHTML 2.0, as discussed at the last meeting. > > 1. Background, why we chose XHTML 2 > 1.1 Some of us could not agree on a completely new structural markup model. > > 1.2 XHTML 2 introduces a structural model into HTML using recursive section > containers and p containers. > > 1.3 This motivated some of us to think that it would provide a close enough > starting point for contract markup. > > 1.4 XHTML 2 seemed attractive because it is XHTML and would be an easier > sell to developers than an entirely new schema. > > 1.5 It was perceived as an advantage of XHTML 2 that it would make it easier > to transform eContracts for web publishing. > > 1.6 Some of us believed (and still believe) that straight XHTML 2 markup was > too loose to be useful and that we must strip it down to a simple model to > make it easy for authors, easier for application developers and useful for > content management and document production. > > 1.7 For my part, I promoted XHTML 2 on the basis that it should give us a > markup model based on one that would become fairly familiar in the > marketplace over the next few years, that we could shape to our needs and > that this would give us a marketing advantage we would not enjoy with an > entirely new schema. In summary, the advantages of XHTML 2.0 for me were > more marketing than technical. > > > 2. What we have learned > 2.1 A strict version of the section and p markup is capable of meeting our > clause model needs, although its not perfect. For example: > (a) HTML lists are not suited to real documents that require flexible > numbering schemes > (b) Some aspects are not well thought out, such a the l element. > At this level we could use something that is a subset of XHTML 2.0. An > eContracts schema could not accept most XHTML 2 markup but it would be easy > to go the other way. > > 2.2 XHTML 2 does not have an obvious way of providing the high level > structure found in contracts. We are faced with either using (over using) > the div element or inventing new elements. There is disagreement about how > many are needed and the design approach required. > > 2.3 Some new inventions are essential, including signature blocks but there > are differences about how to design markup for these. > > 2.4 There seem to be some strong differences within the TC about the meaning > of generic structural markup, the need to support human authoring of > contracts using XML editors and the role of XML in "the contract". > > 2.5 There seems to be some support for implementation of our own namespace. > > > 3. What do we need from XHTML 2? > 3.1 Do we need strict conformance to XHTML 2? I suggest this is not > particularly important. Its an unnecessary straight jacket and we should use > it only while its convenient. Most of the benefits will flow if we can keep > to the section and p markup that has some prospect of becoming familiar to a > fairly wide community, particularly if other legal and business document > markup standards use a similar schema. > > 3.2 Do we need XHTML 2 to publish eContracts on the web? Increasingly, any > XML markup can be rendered on the web using style sheets. The use of XHTML > markup may make this a bit easier but in the vast majority of contract > documents this may not be very important. > > 3.3 It is not clear what else we really need from XHTML 2.0 or how closely > we should stay within its constraints. > > > 4. Conclusions > 4.1 The critical issue is that the schema we adopt or develop should meet > the needs of the proposed standard. At this stage, these needs are > insufficiently defined for us to be able to resolve the issues, such as > those mentioned in 2.4 above, that have been with us since formation of the > TC and for years before in the old Legal XML. > > 4.2 Until we complete the requirements process we will not be able to > resolve the outstanding issues about the use of XHTML 2. > > > regards > Peter Meyer > > > > > 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]