RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues

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

With respect to John, we don't have any such clear requirements as suggested
by him because we don't have any requirements at all at this stage.

Consequently, I suggest it is not productive to debate these kind of markup
issues in that environment.

I believe that we cannot proceed effectively without going back to basics
and working out exactly what it is we want to achieve. This means starting
right at the top (broadest, business needs) and working down. Fortunately,
we now seem to be set on that course. I would like to confine efforts to
that endeavour so we don't repeat the mistakes of the past any longer.

regards
Peter




> -----Original Message-----
> From: John McClure [mailto:jmcclure@hypergrove.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2004 1:34 PM
> To: Legalxml-Econtracts
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues
>
>
> Folks,
> It seems there's still some indecision about whether the <l> and
> <span> elements
> should be included in the structural model.
>
> For me, it's clear: the line element (<l>) is an important element that
> satisfies a specific need unmet by XHTML 1.1.  The <br/> element
> of course does
> not encapsulate at all and needed to be replaced. The user's
> intent is still
> crystal clear, to preface some content with a new line.
>
> We also have an unambiguos requirement for numbering the lines of
> text in a
> contract, We need markup to do that. The <l> element was
> established by XHTML
> 2.0 for exactly this purpose. This has nothing to do with lines
> on a page in a
> document, a styling concern.
>
> As for the <span> element, as for the <div> element, it is not
> much more than
> the equivalent of a so-called "add-in" element. The <span>
> element is an add-in
> in-line element, and the<div> element is an add-in block element.
> Remember, we
> have the same functional 'add-in' requirements as TBL had when he
> designed the
> <div> and <span> elements in HTML 1.0. some years ago. Rolly has mentioned
> 'add-in' requirements several times with regard to marking up
> functionally named
> strings of text. The <span> and <div> elements, together with the
> @property
> attribute, serve precisely this purpose for XHTML 2.0 streams.
>
> It seems overly-analytic to exclude the <l> and <span> elements from our
> structural model, for reason of some ambiguity in some
> situations. I take them
> as given, and will program my applications accordingly, while
> being thankful for
> their wide deployment through the auspices of XHTML 2.0.
>
> John
>
> 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/lea
ve_workgroup.php.