[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] RE: Proposal: One container per level inthe clause hierarchy (was Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Caption Numbers)
John McClure wrote: > Wait, so a <p> > in your model is a different animal than the <Paragraph> you've identified as > part of your Article/Section/Paragraph troika? Hmm Yes. The container at each level needs to allow a heading and a body, where the body might be one or more paragraphs. Since the TC hasn't named that body element yet, i was calling it <p> by way of shorthand. Of course it could be called body or something else if you find p confusing. In any event, a single name, used inside the container for each level. >>I don't understand _at all_ why there is any need for three different >>labels for whatever block appears at level 2. Could you please explain? >> How does an author make his/her choice between them? What does the >>trainer teach? > > > The choice for the label for level 2 depends in part on the number of levels in > the document as a whole, and in part on what the user feels is most appropriate. > If it is a 2 level doc, then there's only need for Clause and SubClause, if that > is the terminology that is comfortable for the author. They also can use Clause > and Paragraph, if that is the terminology they prefer. They could use Section > and Paragraph. They could use Section and SubSection if desired. And then people in different organisations for no good reason end up applying different markup to represent the same document! > All we're doing is acknowledging the important words in the day-to-day > vocabulary of people involved with contracts in some capacity. So the trainer > says to users of DTD-driven editors: > "Choose whatever name you feel appropriate, but be aware that the choice of a > name can foreclose subsequent choices. You cannot choose a Clause to be within > the Contract, and then have Sections within a Clause -- but it certainly is Ok > to have SubClauses AND OR Paragraphs within a Clause, whichever one you, the > author, feels is most appropriate to the task at hand." There is one simple fact that your err-on-the-side-of-choice approach overlooks. The fact is that, within the clauses of the contract (not the front or back matter), there is NEVER a need for two names for a container at any particular level. If my statement is incorrect, you can demonstrate that with a single counter example. Please post one. thanks Jason
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]