No Subject

<Contract>
   <p>text for a para eg recital</p>
   <Article>
      <Title>Article Title</Title>
      <p>text for article, or is this text for a para in the article.</p>
      <p>text for another para in the article.</p>
      <Section>
         <Title>SectionTitle</Title>
         <p>text for section, or is this text for a para in the section.</p>
         <p>text for another para in the section. </p>
         <Paragraph>
             <Title>Para Title</Title>
             <p>text for para.</p>
             <p>text for another para</p>
         </Paragraph>
      </Section>
   </Article>
</Contract>

In my scheme, I would have the following markup (the <en> tag means "English
text"), which works because I don't have text inside an element that is normally
considered a display:block element, like a <p> is. The <en> element is normally
display:inline. and its container elements are display:block only as desired.
Also, please note that citations would occur naturally with this markup --
Section 1, Paragraph 1 would yield "text for another para in the article" which
I THINK is what one would naturally expect, rather than "text for article, or is
this text for a para in the article" so there is XPATH consistency there.

<Contract>
    <Paragraph>
         <en>text for a para eg recital</en>
    </Paragraph>
    <Section>
        <Caption><en>SectionTitle</en></Caption>
        <en>text for article, or is this text for a para in the article.</en>
        <Paragraph>
              <en>text for another para in the article.</en>
        </Paragraph>
        <Clause>
               <Caption><en>Clause Title</en></Caption>
               <en>text for section, or is this text for a para in the
section.</en>
               <Paragraph>
                      <en>text for another para in the section. </en>
              </Paragraph>
              <SubClause>
                     <Caption>SubClause Title</Caption>
                     <en>text for para.</en>
                     <Paragraph>
                             <en>text for another para</en>
                     </Paragraph>
              </SubClause>
         </Clause>
    </Section>
</Contract>

I hope you find this helpful -
John

PS I did make a mistake the other day in the number of templates -- there are
26, not 25, because I forgot the most obvious one!
Contract Section Clause Paragraph { }

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason Harrop [mailto:jharrop@speedlegal.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:57 PM
>To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] RE: Proposal: One container per level
>in the 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
>
>
>
>