RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues

["Peter Meyer" <pmeyer@elkera.com.au>]

Dear John,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2004 12:52 PM
> To: pmeyer@elkera.com.au
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues
>
>
> I take it means that area of a contract where in a paper environment
> manual wet signatures would be applied. Assuming a workflow that is
> fully electronic, how do you justify retaining this block?
>

Yes, the need for signature block markup is based on paper contracts and wet
signatures.

I don't accept that our standard can or should be confined to a fully
electronic workflow which occurs in only limited segments of the contracts
universe (web based online transactions etc where there is rarely, if ever,
negotiation over the contract narrative).

It will be interesting to see what other use cases bring forward but so far,
Rolly's and mine indicate exclusively paper based contract systems with "wet
signatures".

Signature block markup is essential to deal with large parts of the
contracts universe as it is today. Clearly, in fully electronic workflow
situations and in shrink wrap printed contract situations, the signature
block will be irrelevant. That does not mean it should not be part of our
schema.

regards
Peter