W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > September 2009

Re: please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:59:50 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830909291659q5cab9d9dlc8c7f4afff940645@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: public-tt@w3.org, plh@w3.org
I think that in common language, the format will be known as DFXP and
it will be called a captioning or subtitling format - at most a timed
text format, even though that is not something people commonly use. I
would suggest keeping DFXP in the title somehow. Maybe something like
"The DFXP file format for timed text associated with audio or video
data". Doesn't even need a full spell-out of what "DFXP" stands for.


On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> Reviewing http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-ttaf1-dfxp-20090924/#intro
> again, I find I get stuck on the title of the document.
> The name you have given your work does not do it (or W3C) justice:
> "Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange
> Profile (DFXP)"
> The only piece of this which carries any hint as to the real world
> value of your work is the phrase "Timed Text". I strongly encourage
> you to rebrand the work around something more memorable. In practice
> it will be called Timed Text, or Timed Text *something*, and all the
> text floating around that talks about legacy systems, authoring,
> presentation, smil etc will be ignored. The work will succeed or fail
> on the usefulness of the text format. Giving it a name that simply
> identifies its purpose will help it find a useful niche. Failing that,
> at least give it a short enough name that two parties referrring to it
> can do so in two or three syllables. Not twenty!
> The current title (and abstract) need some work before this goes to REC.
> Is the format designed ... for "authoring"? For "exchange"?  Is
> "publication" or "distribution" different to exchange? is conversion
> from a legacy format "authoring"? What makes something "legacy"? Am I
> mis-using the format if I use it for full text indexing or content
> analysis or on-screen search in a smart EPG? Or for counting the swear
> words in a movie sound-track to help human cataloguers classify it?
> The abstract also focusses excessively on "means to an end" issues,
> rather than the actual problems addressed by the technology.
> Here is the abstract, with my comments in [chunky brackets]:
> """This document specifies the distribution format exchange profile
> (DFXP) of the timed text authoring format (TT AF) in terms of a
> vocabulary and semantics thereof.
> [ suggest: This document specifies a format for exchanging Timed Text
> information, by defining a vocabulary with associated semantics ]
> The timed text authoring format is a content type that represents
> timed text media for the purpose of interchange among authoring
> systems. Timed text is textual information that is intrinsically or
> extrinsically associated with timing information.
> [  suggest: Timed Text is textual information that is intrinsically or
> extrinsically associated with timing information. The format defined
> here represents Timed Text in a manner suitable for exchange amongst
> applications involved in the authoring, transcoding, presentation,
> indexing, search or management of timed textual information, eg.
> subtitling and captioning systems. We do not emurate the possible uses
> of the technology, but focus instead on giving the format a clear
> definition so that it can provide interoperability between diverse
> systems.]
> The Distribution Format Exchange Profile is intended to be used for
> the purpose of transcoding or exchanging timed text information among
> legacy distribution content formats presently in use for subtitling
> and captioning functions.
> [ suggest: delete this]
> In addition to being used for interchange among legacy distribution
> content formats, DFXP content may be used directly as a distribution
> format, for example, providing a standard content format to reference
> from a <text> or <textstream> media object element in a [SMIL 2.1]
> document.
> [suggest: delete this; a W3C format can be used wherever it is useful] """
> In summary: please don't go to REC with this awkward, unwieldy name.
> Just call it the Timed Text Markup Language or similar, and resist the
> attempt in the overview to enumerate all the ways (authoring,
> exchange, distribution) the format can be used, and go into a bit more
> detail about what it can be used to *achieve*...
> Thanks,
> Dan
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 00:00:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:05 UTC