W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: (Proposal) Questonnaire to WG chairs on Specification Authoring (AI-2002-06-14-04) [A-2002-07-31-6 CONCLUDED]

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:35:33 +0300
Cc: Lofton Henderson <lofton@terminal.rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Message-Id: <5762439E-B4E9-11D6-A997-000393556882@ontologicon.com>

All,

Below you will find a new version of the questionnaire with previous 
comments dealt with, as well as the introductory section. Pending on 
someone being kind enough to supply the link to the relevant document 
(as I'm on a very bad line), it should be ready for building the 
questionnaire and publishing it.

This concludes my action item A-2002-07-31-6

/Dimitris

---

The QA WG has repeatedly discussed the current practices and use of 
structured/granular grammars (such as XML Schema/DTD or XHTML using a 
div/class mechanism to provide references and structure) in authoring 
W3C specifications. The discussion has mainly been about:
	- The possibility of using structured grammars to represent, more 
clearly than done today, what the specification actually specifies
	- The possibility to use common (sub)sets in order to streamline 
W3C specification authoring
	- The possibility to extract relevant information from the 
specification itself, minimizing the need to interpret the text

You can find further information on the rationale behind these thought 
in (@DD: forgotten link, on vacation on a very sloppy phone line, so 
cannot find pointer to relevant doc. Please assist).

The results of this "voting" will be published to the participants, the 
QA WG editor responsible for the topic, and the W3C chairs.

It is estimated that the procedure takes no longer than 5 minutes to 
conclude, and we would like to urge participants to fill it in, as it 
will greatly enhance the accuracy of the voting as well as provide 
necessary information needed to evaluate current practices and needs 
within the W3C.

>>> 1. In authoring your specifications, do you use (1 choice) as format 
>>> for _authoring_ (not publishing):
>>> [] XML Spec or variety thereof
>>> [] XHTML
>>> [] HTML
>>> [] (X)HTML + div using classes to identify particular content and 
>>> structure
>>>
>>> 2. If you're not using XML Spec, are you using any other grammar or 
>>> agreed on content strucure? If so, please indicate which.
>>> [] Yes (please indicate)
>>> [] No, but group has considered it
>>> [] No
>>>
>>>
	3. If you're using XML Spec, is it the current one, or a modified 
version?
	[] Plain
	[] Modified
	
	If modified, please indicate the nature and rationale of the change.
	
>>> 4. How do you produce your published specifications?
>>> [] Lead editor assembles document editor parts from the editors, 
>>> producing a master document
>>> [] Submit parts of document, producing the master document via script 
>>> or similar solution
>>> [] Other (please indicate)
>>>
>>> 5. How big a part of the editor's workload is it to stay close to a 
>>> particular markup, if used, during the ongoing effort?
>>> [] Less than 5%
>>> [] 5-10%
>>> [] 10-20%
>>> [] More than 20%
>>  [] Please indicate the amount of hours it takes to overcome the 
>> startup phase, ie. how long it (generally) takes for editors to start 
>> using the content structured agreed on by the WG (hours).
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 05:35:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:10 GMT