Fwd: Re: document technologies survey

QAWG,

Does anyone see any reason not to ask spec-prod?

Would the first paragraph need modification?  It works for Chairs and Team, 
but possibly not for whoever listens to spec-prod.  I think we would want 
to keep the focus on "testable standards documents", just to make sure that 
we don't start getting replies about other miscellaneous stuff (I don't 
know who listens to spec-prod and what they work on.)

Why not, i.e., why don't we want general document feedback as opposed to 
standards specifications?  Because SpecGL is about "standards" 
specificaiton -- those that contain normative requirements -- remember, 
this started from "taggable test assertions", and that is a major part of 
our interest.

One thing I noticed about the survey -- we don't ask for name/WG/spec.  Do 
we need a new question "0."  What W3C specification(s) do your answers cover?

-Lofton.

>Subject: Re: document technologies survey
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
>Cc: w3c-archive@w3.org,
>         dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>,
>         dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris@ontologicon.com>
>X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.7
>Date: 05 Sep 2002 12:54:30 -0500
>X-RCPT-TO: <lofton@rockynet.com>
>
>On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 11:21, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> > Chairs,
> >
> > The QAWG needs your help in completing a survey of document technologies
> > currently in use by W3C's editors.
>
>I recommend you ask spec-prod too.
>
>"Aaargh! Maintaining specs is a Royal Pain! We need to automate this!
>
>This forum is for discussion of mechanisms for producing and managing
>that text."
>
>   -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>office: tel:+1-913-491-0501

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 14:15:12 UTC