RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Last comments from me on the prelim SC Report

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

>Do you mean to suggest that if the TC accepts authoring contracts using an XML
>editor is a key use case, then you will accept without further ado the named
>containers model which Peter and I have proposed, on the basis that it is the
>model most suited for use by contract authors?

Jason,

1. Any/every XHTML 2.0 extension must have a technically solid justification.
2. Your @class attribute for <extras> parallels the @class attribute for <div>.
3. The <operative> and <background> elements still appear extraneous.

My objective is to publish a standard neither parochial nor arcane -- it needs
to resonate with a huge community of sophisticated interested observers. These
are people who already know the HTML element set, many of whom IMO would
discount the longevity of our standard should signficant excess baggage be
detected (yes, I am saying 50% of all the elements proposed are baggage).

For those reviewers who don't know HTML, well, I would be quite amazed if they
suddenly became fond of a raw XML editor that (a) does not manage lists of
attribute-value choices very well and (b) does not have a "user-friendly"
psuedonym capability for element names. Both are application issues for which
the LegalXML eContracts TC bears no responsibility to address.

Bottom-line, if you do wish to press the case for a standard that caters to an
XML editor, then may I suggest you provide the group an explicit definition of
the capabilities of such a "User Agent", so that we can all stop the subjective
guessing game about what is "most suited for use by contract authors" and what
is not. Such definition, my friend, would be critical to the TC's assessment of
the  XHTML extensions you've proposed.

Best regards,
John