legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[Rolly Chambers]

Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes The notion of a simplified CD 1.1 subset came from the TEILITE DTD (see http://www.tei-c.org/Lite/U5-pref.html ) and the Simplified Docbook DTD (see http://www.docbook.org/xml/simple/index.html ) as well as the GCAC Lessons Learned paper. The GCAC pilot also indicated that there were a number of problems with the XML initially used for the tests (not well-formed, not valid, inconsistent use of some elements and attributes). A simplified court document DTD is one way to reduce the kinds of XML document problems apparently encountered in GCAC testing. However, I don't think we should offer a simplified Court Document DTD if the only rationale is that other DTD's have done something similar. In considering Don and Roger's comments, the point that I think John Aerts is making also occurred to me. It would not be beneficial overall for someone to create applications that worked only with basic court documents valid against a lite subset of the CD 1.1 DTD, but not with more complicated court documents valid against the full DTD. I don't know how to deal with the risk that others may create improper subsets of the CD 1.1 DTD (or any other DTD for that matter) anyway, except to say, as Roger does, that they do so at their own risk (or for their own convenience). At any rate, all of this convinces me that a simplified Court Document 1.1 DTD is going, going, . . . . . . . . . gone. We can attempt to address possible problems of complexity, difficulty, etc. through documents, presentations, etc. as suggested. Rolly Chambers