Re: (Proposal) Questonnaire to WG chairs on Specification Authoring (AI-2002-06-14-04)

Thanks for this, Dimitris.

All QAWG -- Please read and consider.  I propose to discuss this briefly at 
our Wednesday morning QAWG telecon.  I'd like to agree on any changes, and 
show it at the 7/18 Team Project Review of QAWG (it was rescheduled from 
earlier because of schedule conflicts).

-Lofton

At 06:16 PM 7/5/02 +0300, Dimitris Dimitriadis wrote:

>[Introductive wording]
>
>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
>
>(Rationale: will give a clearer picture of what people use now.)
>
>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)
>[] Yes (please indicate)
>[] No, but group has considered it
>[] No
>
>(Rationale: give a clue as to how many have looked into granular grammars 
>and adopted it.)
>
>3. How do you produce your published specifications?
>[] Lead editor/WG chair assembles parts from the editors, producing a 
>master document
>[] Submit parts of document, producing the master document via script or 
>similar solution
>[] Other (please indicate)
>
>(Rationale: gives goood indication as to how lead editors work when 
>producing master documents)
>
>4. How big a part of the editor's workload is it to stay close to a 
>particular markup, if used?
>[] Less than 5%
>[] 5-10%
>[] 10-20%
>[] More than 20%
>
>(Rationale: up to 10% of time invested spent on grammar issues would, I 
>think, be acceptable. Anything over that is too much to ask people to 
>invest time in.)
>
>This concludes my action item AI-2002-06-14-04.
>
>Comments are appreciated.
>
>/Dimitris
>

Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 18:33:36 UTC