- From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:24:43 +0300
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@terminal.rockynet.com>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Comments inlined On Thursday, July 18, 2002, at 01:14 AM, Lofton Henderson wrote: > > All QAWG -- > > If you have any comments on this, please send them around in the next > day or two -- it will be on the 7/24 telecon (week from today). > > My comments... > > At 06:16 PM 7/5/02 +0300, you wrote: > >> [Introductive wording] > > This should motivate why we're doing the questionnaire. So it ought to > point back to the "taggable TA" thread and its proposals for a granular > grammar. > > >> 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) > > Suggested rewording: "If you are not using XML Spec, are you using any > other grammar or agreed on content structure?" > [dd] No objection >> [] 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.) > > By the way, it would be useful to define "granular grammars", maybe in > "Introduction" (where it might appear for the first time.) > [dd] I suppose granular grammar could be defined as either an XML grammar, or XHTML using some "intelligent mechanism for markup purposes", like div+class > >> 3. How do you produce your published specifications? >> [] Lead editor/WG chair assembles parts from the editors, producing a >> master document > > Suggestion: delete "/WG chair" > [dd] OK >> [] Submit parts of document, producing the master document via script >> or similar solution >> [] Other (please indicate) > > Questions for clarification. I'm not sure exactly what we're asking. > The "parts" are XML or XHTML or HTML, per #1? I.e., the scope of this > question is: how to assemble contributions of multiple source bits from > different editors into a single source document (XML, XHTML, HTML)? > I.e., this question does not refer to details such as how to produce > normative /TR/ published XHTML version from (master) "source" version? > [dd] You understanding is correct, the idea was to get an understanding of how lead editors assemble document parts. > >> (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% > > Does this refer to ongoing effort? Or startup and learning curve? Or > both? Opinion. An explicit question about each aspect would be > useful. My suspicion is that the startup is a big deterrent, but > ongoing effort is minimal (or even less). > [dd] OK, a split might actually show that the only thing scary is the initial effort to learn. Good point. > A companion question to #1 and #2 would be interesting: > > "If you are using XMLspec, are you using: > [] plain vanilla XMLspec > [] modified or customize version > > If 'modified', please explain the nature and purpose of the > modifications." (Note. I'm not sure what is the authoritative "plain > vanilla" version; and, there's probably a better way to phrase that > option.) > [dd] I think there is a normative XML Spec version (not sure if it is in use, can we have som W3C Team feedback?) > -Lofton. > > >> (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 Thursday, 18 July 2002 02:23:51 UTC