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.
Regards,
Rolly Chambers
----- Original Message -----
From:
Peter
Meyer
To: Chambers, Rolly
Cc: Legalxml-Econtracts
TC
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.
regards
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Chambers, Rolly [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2004 2:33 PM
> To: ; 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
