[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: XHTML 2.0
Folks, This starts a thread for discussion about using XHTML 2.0 as our clause model. My claim is: 1. Its clause model matches our requirements *adequately*, despite any fluff it's said to have. 2. We best standardize Modular XHTML modules for signature blocks & other items as needed 3. XHTML 2.0 will be standardized well-before signficant audiences even read our documents. The primary disadvantage of rolling our own to me is that it distracts us from marking up the information *in* the contract, a task that I know several of us would like finally to 'get on with'. Whatever you want to call them, legal obligations or simple events, these are the things that deserve our precious time. Today's call was certainly testimony to our ability to work together, however I must conclude after three (?) consecutive calls devoted to the "clause model", after quite a few previous related skirmishes, that this is but the beginning of a long series of calls about the design of elegant markup for 1. tables of contents, though XHTML 2,0 provides a perfectly adequate set of "navigation list" elements for this job. 2. tables, though the HTML table model is used in 99% of markup today. 3. inline elements , though XHTML has a complete set of useful, known, presentation- and linking-related inline elements. We can even discuss how a <cite> element is to be written to content within an XHTML 2.0 contract. 4. metadata elements, though XHTML very adequately provides for this, even now moving to standardize a pointer to RDF metadata about the XHTML 2.0 document. This addresses our metadata needs well enough. Additionally, the 2.0 draft also explicitly addresses incorporating Dublin Core elements, so document indexing metadata requirements are now met. 5. list elements, which apparently are inadequate in XHTML 2.0. But there is nothing stopping us from identifying changes to the current W3C draft, at the same time that we express our need for a numbering element used only within their new <head> element. Given all this, I shudder at spending many more months of phone calls working out solutions for problems that are already solved by XHTML 2.0. I truly believe that the focus of our energy should be on developing the metadata about the language of the contract -- it's now clear that the industry accepts storing metadata in an RDF file, so let's be decisive about our direction for the coming year. Let's define a few XHTML modules (a Signature Module and an Attachments Module at least) and several RDF datastreams (one for each event in the "life" of a contract). Let's standardize 'best practices' on the use of XHTML. Let's create a standard that is as relevant as possible to the real world happening all around us. Basically, I'd like to have a vote soonest on whether the Clause Model discussions can now be suspended indefinitely, and we now investigate creating Signature and Attachment Modules for use by XHTML 2.0 datastreams. I think such work would considerably improve the Requirements document. Thanks, John
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]