RE: [legalxml-econtracts] The Clause Model

["John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>]

The DTD does not allow <text> elems inside of <text> elems. In HTML, <span> can
be embedded within a <span>, a pattern widely used for formatting. Am I missing
something?
thanks.
John

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jason Harrop [mailto:jharrop@speedlegal.com]
>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:56 AM
>To: Legalxml-Econtracts
>Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] The Clause Model
>
>
>Hi
>
>Following last week's teleconference, i was to write an evaluation of
>the latest
>incarnation of the clause model, as contained in Peter's document.
>
>Having thought further about the issues Peter identifies, and other
>implications
>of the model, i believe there are certain problems we've been trying
>to address
>which can't be solved without viewing things in a different light.
>Fortunately, this is quite easy to do and doesn't mean throwing out
>all our work
>to date.
>
>I've attached my response in RTF, for ease of quotation etc. i won't get a
>chance to test the RTF in various versions of Word until tomorrow, but please
>let me know if there are any glitches.
>
>Also, I've copied below the summary for anyone who finds that more convenient.
>
>Looking forward to discussing this in Thursday's teleconf, and maybe before :)
>
>cheers,
>
>Jason
>
>
>---------------------
>
>
>Summary
>
>It is the thesis of this document that everything turns on whether we
>insist on
>an element which represents a grammatical paragraph, so that a list (block or
>inline) in a sentence can be encapsulated in that element:
>
><Item>
>     <GrammaticalPara>
>	Here is a list of colours:
>                 <Items>
>                     <Item><Text>red,</Text></Item>
>                     <Item><Text>green,</Text></Item>
>                     <Item><Text>blue</Text></Item>
>                 </Items>
>     </GrammaticalPara>
><Item>
>
>In the models the TC has been considering, the GrammaticalPara element
>has been
>labeled Para or Block.  I call these Grammatical Paragraph models, and argue
>that these models have certain inevitable consequences.   The consequnces flow
>from the fact that you can also do:
>
><Item>
>     <GrammaticalPara>
>	Here is a list of colours:
>     </GrammaticalPara>
>     <Items>
>                <Item><Text>red,</Text></Item>
>                <Item><Text>green,</Text></Item>
>                <Item><Text>blue</Text></Item>
>     </Items>
><Item>
>
>On the other hand, if we decide that we do not need to model a grammatical
>paragraph, but rather, are content with capturing blocks of text (a
>typographical view), then a simpler model is available:
>
><Item>
>	<Text>Here is a list of colours:</Text>
>                 <Items>
>                     <Item><Text>red,</Text></Item>
>                     <Item><Text>green,</Text></Item>
>                     <Item><Text>blue</Text></Item>
>                 </Items>
></Item>
>
>  I call models with this feature a Simple Paragraph Model (after DocBook's
>"simpara" element)1.
>
>I suggest that in view of the difficulties sometimes encountered in asking
>lawyers and other contract authors to choose between block-lists and
>sub-clauses, the TC should adopt a Simple Paragraph Model.
>
>It completely avoids some of the technical difficulties which have
>dogged us so
>far, and is considerably easier for lawyers and other contract authors.
>
>By way of introduction, this document explains in more detail the outstanding
>issues with lists and subclauses which we have been grappling with.
>
>It is these issues, and the insight that they are inherent in Grammatical
>Paragraph Models,2 which leads us to a Simple Paragraph model.
>
>The model contained in Peter's "Structural markup – Basic clause model
>proposal
>and specification" document (draft 1.0 of 11 November 2003) is a Grammatical
>Paragraph model.  Hereinafter I refer to it (and that document as a
>whole) as GP1.
>
>In my view, a Simple Paragraph Model offers us very considerable
>advantages over
>any Grammatical Paragraph Model.
>
>It is for this reason that the body of this document does not discuss the
>specifics of GP1.
>
>If, following a comparison of Simple and Grammatical Paragraph Models, and a
>discussion of their relative merits, the TC expresses a preference for a
>Grammatical Paragraph Model, GP1 would need to be considered further. For this
>reason, a critique of GP1 and recommendations for improving it are
>contained in
>Appendix 2.
>