OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-econtracts message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues

Title: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues

I believe we're thinking along the same lines -- a straightforward approach to incorporating digital signatures may be to just incorporate W3C XML-dsig work as part of an eContracts standard.


Rolly Chambers

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 2:24 AM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues

Hi Rolly,

A quick note on your point below re signature blocks.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chambers, Rolly [mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2004 2:33 PM
> To: pmeyer@elkera.com.au; John Messing
> Cc: Legalxml-Econtracts TC
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues
> I'm thinking of the signature block as the portion of a paper
> contract that often contains typed information about the signers
> (e.g. name, contact info, title or position of the person signing
> on behalf of an organization, date signed, etc.) This info is
> useful but seldom if ever appears elsewhere in the contract
> document. Thus, I think it should be provided for in an eContracts schema.

PM: Agreed. its more than just the line on which the signature is written.

> I'm not thinking of signature block as just the signature line,
> where manual wet signatures are applied to paper contract
> documents. To me digital signatures in the electronic world are a
> closer counterpart to wet signatures in the paper world.

PM: perhaps this is true but its not clear we need markup similar to a
signature block for digital signatures. In the context of the proposed
structural markup, the signature block markup is solely for wet signatures
and the related wording. This could be reviewed later on if we decide we
need to make some specific provision for digital signatures and there is an
overlap with wet signatures.

> I have been assuming that we will need to address at a later
> stage how digital signatures or an equivalent will be applied to
> eContracts in the context of a fully electronic workflow.
> However, as Peter correctly points out, my draft use case does
> not directly cover this, but simply observes that currently the
> parties to construction contracts sign a paper copy once they
> have agreed on the contract wording.
> Rolly Chambers

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]