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

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

Guys:

I am certain this is a hot debate, but from the sidelines, I can't tell
what the dickens any of you are talking about.  Thought you might like
to know.

Internet communications are insecure. If you would like to initiate
secure communications, these can be made available upon request.

The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and
confidential.  It is intended to be read only by the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed or by their designee. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any
distribution of this message, in any form, is strictly prohibited. 

If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the
sender by "Reply" command and/or John H. Messing, P.C. by telephone at
(520) 547-7933 and permanently delete the original and any copies or
printouts thereof. Although this email and any attachments are believed
to be free of any virus or other defect, it is the responsibility of the
recipient to ensure that a message is virus free. John H. Messing, John
H. Messing PC and Law-on-Line Inc. take no responsibility for any loss
or damage.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Last comments from me on the prelim
> SC Report
> From: "Jason Harrop" <jharrop@speedlegal.com>
> Date: Wed, July 21, 2004 3:13 pm
> To: "Legalxml-Econtracts" <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> John
> 
> This was a simple question.
> 
> Are you saying that if we jump through the extra hoop of showing the TC how a 
> typical XML editing tool might be used with our structural model, and having 
> done that, the TC says "yes, using one of those to create a contract is a valid 
> use case", then you'll accept the named containers model?
> 
> Because if you still won't accept it, you should say so now, and either "put up 
> or shut up" as we have done.
> 
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> John McClure wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_workgroup.php.