|Subject:||7/22 XHTML 2.0 WD Released|
|From:||John McClure (jmcc...@hypergrove.com)|
|Date:||Jul 23, 2004 8:18:14 am|
ANNOUNCEMENT ================ XHTML 2.0 WD released yesterday: see http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/
Zoran, Yes, the Word version sent 5 hrs later can be ignored, in favor of the eContracts version I posted. In fact, I suggest that the TC/SC resolve that the document be published using the eContracts markup proposed by the report !
Regarding its rendering by IE, I have now remembered that the .xhtml file extension causes IE to render it as an XHTML stream but, because it uses XHTML 1.1+<instrument>+<section>+<h>+@property markup, that confuses poor IE.... renaming the file with the .xml extension wakes it up, so I will be able to publish the next (final?) version so that it can be displayed by IE with no problems. The "lame CSS support" I spoke of concerned its support of attribute-related CSS selectors -- workarounds are indeed possible.
I do understand the other issue you're raising == where to put any markup about the semantics of the contract == but with your permission, let's defer that discussion until we've studied the W3C's latest WD.
-----Original Message----- From: Zoran Milosevic [mailto:zor...@dstc.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:20 PM To: John McClure; Legalxml-Econtracts Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Revised SC Report (in eContracts Markup), Part 1
Should we then ignore the email you sent some 5 hours before? I was just going through it when your new email arrived. This is not efficient for the readers who try to understand what is happening.
It is interesting that 'the XHTML file will NOT display in IE because of its currently lame support for CSS styling of XML....'. This again reinforces my views that, although it is good that we reuse concepts from XTML for describing structure of contracts, we really need to concentrate on defining our own set of concepts needed to describe structure of contracts (and other documents) - defining structural contract schema as a common denominator for most contracts. A good alignment of this schema with XHTML concepts will make it easier to map between XML version of contracts and XHTML which may be very useful for authoring tools etc. However, such a schema can be used as a basis for a broader set of capabilities needed for other aspects of contract management as stated in our chater.
I also feel that the structural sub-group has done good progress so far and we all need to be involved to help consolidating some existing differences.
-----Original Message----- From: John McClure [mailto:jmcc...@hypergrove.com] Sent: Friday, 23 July 2004 8:23 AM To: Legalxml-Econtracts Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Revised SC Report (in eContracts Markup), Part 1
Attached is (1) a new version of the report, marked-up using the structural elements and coding techniques that I am proposing (2) the CSS stylesheet and (3) a PDF rendition.
Beware, IE users, the XHTML file will NOT display in IE because of its currently lame support for CSS styling of XML.... one must either use Mozilla, or be happy with the PDF.
I am not planning to update the Word version sent earlier. Materially, I have modified statement 1.4 because there was a serious error there; nothing material has changed except 1.4. Thanks, John
-----Original Message----- From: John McClure [mailto:jmcc...@hypergrove.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:00 AM To: Legalxml-Econtracts Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Part 1, Revised SC Report
All, Attached is the first part of my suggested revisions to the current SC Report. It would still be convenient for me if a Word version of the current draft report could be circulated or sent me directly ... modifying PDF is a chore.
I'll publish more -- maybe even finish it -- during the weekend unless of course I hear request(s) not to continue. Your comments about its style or content are welcomed and appreciated -- either through postings or as corrections to the attached file (please use a different color, like firehouse red! ).
Best regards, John
PS If someone could figure out why this file is poorly layed-out by PDF Writer, that would be a big help. Thanks.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to