- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:14:09 -0600
- To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
All QAWG -- If you have any comments on this, please send them around in the next day or two -- it will be on the 7/24 telecon (week from today). My comments... At 06:16 PM 7/5/02 +0300, you wrote: >[Introductive wording] This should motivate why we're doing the questionnaire. So it ought to point back to the "taggable TA" thread and its proposals for a granular grammar. >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 > >(Rationale: will give a clearer picture of what people use now.) > >2. Are you using any grammar or other agreed on content structure? If so, >please indicate which (does not apply if you use XML Spec) Suggested rewording: "If you are not using XML Spec, are you using any other grammar or agreed on content structure?" >[] Yes (please indicate) >[] No, but group has considered it >[] No > >(Rationale: give a clue as to how many have looked into granular grammars >and adopted it.) By the way, it would be useful to define "granular grammars", maybe in "Introduction" (where it might appear for the first time.) >3. How do you produce your published specifications? >[] Lead editor/WG chair assembles parts from the editors, producing a >master document Suggestion: delete "/WG chair" >[] Submit parts of document, producing the master document via script or >similar solution >[] Other (please indicate) Questions for clarification. I'm not sure exactly what we're asking. The "parts" are XML or XHTML or HTML, per #1? I.e., the scope of this question is: how to assemble contributions of multiple source bits from different editors into a single source document (XML, XHTML, HTML)? I.e., this question does not refer to details such as how to produce normative /TR/ published XHTML version from (master) "source" version? >(Rationale: gives goood indication as to how lead editors work when >producing master documents) > >4. How big a part of the editor's workload is it to stay close to a >particular markup, if used? >[] Less than 5% >[] 5-10% >[] 10-20% >[] More than 20% Does this refer to ongoing effort? Or startup and learning curve? Or both? Opinion. An explicit question about each aspect would be useful. My suspicion is that the startup is a big deterrent, but ongoing effort is minimal (or even less). A companion question to #1 and #2 would be interesting: "If you are using XMLspec, are you using: [] plain vanilla XMLspec [] modified or customize version If 'modified', please explain the nature and purpose of the modifications." (Note. I'm not sure what is the authoritative "plain vanilla" version; and, there's probably a better way to phrase that option.) -Lofton. >(Rationale: up to 10% of time invested spent on grammar issues would, I >think, be acceptable. Anything over that is too much to ask people to >invest time in.) > >This concludes my action item AI-2002-06-14-04. > >Comments are appreciated. > >/Dimitris >
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 18:11:29 UTC