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.
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.