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

Re: DOM WG Specification questionnaire

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 07:58:29 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020903075623.00b1b3c0@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Yes - think we should replace reference [2] with the 3 more specific 
references.
(BTW - reference [2] seems to be broken)

Lynne


At 02:15 PM 9/2/02, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>QAWG --
>
>Dom and I have an AI to send the questionnaire to chairs/team 
>contacts.  As I was incorporating last week's telecon discussion about 
>when and how to reply, I thought that it might be best (less distracting) 
>to reduce the technical detail in the message itself, in favor of one or 
>more references.
>
>Here is a proposed revision (full original questionnaire follows).  What 
>do you think?  In particular, should we replace reference [2] with these 
>three detailed ones, that point to where the information about granular 
>grammars is found in SpecGL:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/#b2b3b3c59
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/#b2b3b3d123
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/#b2b3b3d677
>
>Or, might this run the risk of turning the questionnaire request into 
>another argument thread about taggable test assertions?
>
>### Proposed new intro ###
>[Chairs,]
>[Team contacts,]
>
>The QAWG needs your help in completing a survey of document technologies 
>currently in use by W3C's editors.  Please pass this along to your project 
>editors, and urge them to take 5 minutes (estimated) to fill in the 
>questionnaire.
>
>Backgound:  We have had a lively email thread [1] about using structured 
>grammars -- e.g., an enhancement of "XMLspec", or XHTML customized with 
>class attributes -- to enhance the testability of specifications and 
>facilitate the building of associated test materials.  This theme is also 
>represented in the current "QA Framework:  Specification Guidelines" 
>[2].  This survey is a first step in determining what, if anything, we 
>might be able to provide in terms of common tools and techniques to help 
>authors.  Depending on the outcome, QAWG may put resources into prototype(s).
>
>References:
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002May/0000.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/Contents
>
>Please reply by:  1 October (a week before our next face-to-face meeting).
>
>Please reply to:
>
>1.)  Preferred:  www-qa-wg@w3.org.  This is publicly archived.  If you do 
>not want your mail message on a publicly archived list, then...
>2.)  Alternative:  dimitris@ontologicon.com, dom@w3.org
>
>Thanks in advance for your help.  We will collate the results and 
>distribute them to participants.
>### end ###
>
>Regards,
>-Lofton.
>
>At 03:15 PM 8/25/02 +0300, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:
>>[...]
>>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. Please mark the answer which best fits your WG, and give 
>>a text description where needed.
>>
>>
>>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 Tuesday, 3 September 2002 07:51:12 GMT

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