Subject: RE: [docbook-tc] legalsection versus section in legalnotice
Thanks for bringing this up, Bob.
I agree with Scott about allowing legalnotice outside of info â I think the nature of legal notices has changed a good deal with the proliferation of software products (and, for that matter, hardware products) that include multiple components, frequently from different sources, integrated into a single solution. This is particularly important with open source software, which frequently requires presenting the license as part of the requirements to use the software.
I was thinking that the content of a section-like thing inside a legalnotice would be essentially the same as a the current legalnotice, with the addition of whatever the section element is called. Leganotice does not currently exclude all technical inlines (program listing elements and elements associated with screens are included) but I thought it would make sense to retain the current content model. Since the content would be different from a normal section, I would lean towards it being a different element, since I think there are usability issues with elements that change the legal content based on ancestry of the element. I think presenting it as âthis is a legal section so it can have whatever you had in the original legal notice, but broken up into a more reasonable structureâ makes sense and will be easy to explain. I have seen a number of legal notices that include screens, so I feel that preserving the current model is reasonable (I think I remember one with a code fragment but I may be imagining that or confusing it with a README â I see a lot of both README and license information since I work on tools to analyzer open source software that is included in HPE products).
Thanks for chiming in, Scott. Good comments.
I think there are times where we would want the legalnotice content as metadata, and also times when the notice needs to be included in the publication. Based on this, I think we do need to allow legalnotice outside of info.
For legalsection, I would think we would want to strip out the technical inlines like:
I'd even be willing to cut more out of the model, as this content should be pretty cut and dried legaleseâ 😊
I'd also be ok with just allowing section directly for the reuse opportunities and minimal impact to user expectations.
I'm following up on my action item to continue the discussion of the content model of legalnotice to support some kind of section. I have attached the sample files that Larry sent out 23 October 2018.
We were debating whether we should allow section within legalnotice or whether we should add a new legalsection element only for legalnotice. I'll try and summarize the discussion so far.
The first question I want to ask is whether we are allowing legalnotice to appear outside of info. That would make such a legalnotice into literal content that would always be rendered in the output, as opposed to metadata in info that may or may not be rendered. I believed we discussed this possibility, for example putting several legalnotices in an appendix, but I'm not sure what we decided. That decision would seem to affect how we structure legalnotice, especially if it contains sections.
So do we intend to allow legalnotice as regular content outside of info?
If we use section within legalnotice, I don't think we resolved whether we would alter the content model when it is used inside legalnotice. That seems to be something we need to decide as it affects the arguments for and against.
For example, if we change the content model of section inside legalsection, then you could not cut and paste sections in and out of legalsection without getting validation errors. Also, users of a content-aware editor would experience restrictions in their element selection that they might not understand. If we don't change the model of section inside legalnotice, then both of these arguments no longer apply.
So, do we need to change the content model of section inside legalnotice, and if so, how?