- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:35:33 +0300
- To: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Cc: Lofton Henderson <lofton@terminal.rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
All, Below you will find a new version of the questionnaire with previous comments dealt with, as well as the introductory section. Pending on someone being kind enough to supply the link to the relevant document (as I'm on a very bad line), it should be ready for building the questionnaire and publishing it. This concludes my action item A-2002-07-31-6 /Dimitris --- 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. >>> 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 Wednesday, 21 August 2002 05:35:18 UTC