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

proposed final questionnaire

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:07:14 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Dom -- I have integrated your harmonization of #1 & #2, as well as the QAWG 
telecon-decided changes (and some editorial changes from Jack).  See below.

If you like it, delete "[Chairs]" and unbracket the other.  Actually, I 
think I will wait until I hear "okay" from you, before I send to "Chairs" 
-- I'd rather maybe have to wait a few more hours rather than risk that 
there is a problem and we send two different versions.

---------- proposed final letter starts on next line-------------------
[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 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
[] (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 one (v2.1), or a modified 
[] 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 Survey ==========

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2002May/0000.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020826/Contents

(QAWG co-chair)
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:07:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:31 UTC