Fwd: document technologies survey

QAWG --

The questionnaire is sent.  Below, for your reference, is what finally went 
out.  (Also available at member-only 
location:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2002JulSep/0099.html)

Anyone interested in the topic should look at "See also", at the bottom of 
the page:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/

(I have only just found this resource myself).

-Lofton.

>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>
>Subject: document technologies survey
>Cc: dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>,
>  dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@terminal.rockynet.com>
>
>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)