- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 17:33:31 +0100
- To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:21:33 -0400 (EDT) >X-Sender: lofton@rockynet.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 10:21:47 -0600 >To: chairs@w3.org >From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com> >Cc: dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, > dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com> >Subject: document technologies survey >Resent-From: chairs@w3.org >X-Mailing-List: <chairs@w3.org> archive/latest/2108 >X-Loop: chairs@w3.org >Sender: chairs-request@w3.org >Resent-Sender: chairs-request@w3.org >List-Id: <chairs.w3.org> >List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/> >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:chairs-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe> >X-MailScanner: Found to be clean > >Chairs, > >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 below. > >Backgound: We have had a lively email thread about 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 is also a theme in "QA >Framework: Specification Guidelines". This survey is a first step to >determine whether there is a set of common tools and techniques that might >help authors, and that might warrant further QAWG attention (including a >possible prototype project). > >Please reply by: 1 October (a week before our next face-to-face meeting). >Please reply to: dimitris@ontologicon.com, dom@w3.org > >Thanks in advance for your help. We will collate the results and >distribute them to participants. To protect your privacy and email >addresses, we will keep the raw results only in member-only space (/QA/Group/). > >========== Begin Questionnaire ========== > >1. In authoring your specifications, do you use (1 choice) as format for >_authoring_ (not publishing): >[] XMLspec or variety thereof >[] XHTML >[] HTML >[] (X)HTML + div using classes to identify particular content and structure >[] Other, indicate: > >2. If you're not using XMLspec, has your group considered it? >[] Yes, please indicate why you rejected it: >[] No, please indicate why: > >3. If you're using XMLspec, is it the current distribution (v2.1 or v2.2), >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). > >========== End Questionnaire ========== > >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 > >Regards, >Lofton. >(QAWG co-chair)
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 12:35:47 UTC