status of legalsection

[Bob Stayton <bobs@sagehill.net>]

I want to summarize where we are with legalsection. Larry submitted his candidate schema changes in March, and I passed those along to Norm and Jirka for review.

Jirka had two questions which we settled at our June meeting. He asked if we wanted to intermix legalsection with section, and we said yes. He asked if we wanted to intermix with sect1 et al, and we said no. Larry's proposal meets these requirements already.

Norm expressed concern that the proposed schema was based on a processed version. In fact, our schema source files are in RNC, and Larry edited the RNG version. That should not matter for testing.  This discussion, however, led us to ask Norm and Jirka to document the schema source files and processing steps. Norm said he would do that, so I will be following up with him on that issue.

I just again tested the March RNG schema proposal that Larry created, and it meets our requirements except for one thing. It does not permit putting a legalsection *after* a section as a sibling. In that regard, it behaves like simplesect, but we want legalsection to intermix more than simplesect, so an article or chapter or section could contain a sequence of sections and legalsections as siblings.

I just asked Jirka if he could fix this issue, and make a schema using the RNC syntax. I don't know if he will have time to do that before our Wednesday meeting.

-- 
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net