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

Re: (Proposal) Questonnaire to WG chairs on Specification Authoring (AI-2002-06-14-04)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:14:09 -0600
Message-Id: <>
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 

>1. In authoring your specifications, do you use (1 choice) as format for 
>_authoring_ (not publishing):
>[] XML Spec or variety thereof
>[] 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.)


>(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.
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 18:11:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:28 UTC