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

Re: DOM WG Specification questionnaire

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:26:36 +0200
Cc: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Message-Id: <EAFC7DB8-BF59-11D6-9D5A-000393556882@ontologicon.com>

My 2 (Euro) cents:

I think the intro is OK, as it really gives a good background and 
rationale. Also, I think we should include more specific references. 
Thirdly, the entire thread is erroneous in having "DOM WG..." as a 
subject, which of course should have been "QA WG...". That's what you 
get for working too fast.

/Dimitris

On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 03:52  PM, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>
> At 07:58 AM 9/3/2002 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>> Yes - think we should replace reference [2] with the 3 more specific 
>> references.
>> (BTW - reference [2] seems to be broken)
>
> Yes, it is broken -- thanks.  It's missing the #.
>
> I'm going to put this on tomorrow's agenda for a brief look at a couple 
> of things.  One is cutting down the intro even more.  We can then send 
> it to Chair/Team after the telecon.
>
> In particular, there is some apparent redundancy in questions #1 and 
> #2.  Yes, I know -- I made a comment on #2 and the current wording is 
> mine.  But going back to the previous draft, there is still some 
> apparent redundancy or else I'm misunderstanding.  (Previous version, 
> "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)").
>
> -Lofton.
>
>
>> 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 12:26:46 GMT

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