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: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:24:43 +0300
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@terminal.rockynet.com>
Message-Id: <0C6E3133-9A17-11D6-8F1C-000393556882@ontologicon.com>

Comments inlined

On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 01:14  AM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>
> 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?"
>
[dd] No objection

>> [] 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.)
>
[dd] I suppose granular grammar could be defined as either an XML 
grammar, or XHTML using some "intelligent mechanism for markup 
purposes", like div+class

>
>> 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"
>
[dd] OK

>> [] 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?
>
[dd] You understanding is correct, the idea was to get an understanding 
of how lead editors assemble document parts.

>
>> (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).
>
[dd] OK, a split might actually show that the only thing scary is the 
initial effort to learn. Good point.

> 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.)
>
[dd] I think there is a normative XML Spec version (not sure if it is in 
use, can we have som W3C Team feedback?)

> -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 Thursday, 18 July 2002 02:23:51 GMT

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