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

Re: DOM WG Specification questionnaire

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 11:27:18 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020903111947.0361dc80@rockynet.com>
To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I have put this on the agenda for a quick hit tomorrow -- during telecon -- 
see final agenda later today.

As I said, when I went to add the how-to/who-to reply, I started thinking 
about it.  And wondering about this... almost certainly, any W3C editor is 
going to understand what we're asking in the questions, without pointing to 
the technical background of the issue in any detail.  So I was worrying 
that the simple completion of the questionnaire might get distracted or 
caught up or procrastinated by researching our references, arguing about 
issues, etc.

This might be groundless worry, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts (in 
telecon).

-Lofton.

At 06:26 PM 9/3/02 +0200, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:

>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 13:26:40 GMT

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