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: Glenn Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:03:29 +0800
Message-ID: <94ad087a0909291703w259aba49lb6b7c69c4d826fc0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: public-tt@w3.org, plh@w3.org
The intent of the 2nd Candidate Recommendation phase is to obtain
implementation feedback. While what you say below is of potential editorial
import, it does not represent useful implementation feedback. As it is, the
name of the specification is now a number of years old, and no such comment
as you submit now has been previously received. While I might agree that the
title is a bit lengthy, it is accurate, and it reflects the end results of a
long process which it represents well. I might agree with you that the name
is not one that has much marketing zing, but then again, neither do most of
the other names of specifications published by the W3C.

Finally, I would note that both the name of the specification, its "short
name" (ttaf1-dfxp), and the various URIs derived from the short name, were
formally submitted to the Director some years ago and approved for use in
this work. Changing it now would require requesting a change and obtaining a
new approval. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the TTWG will be
willing to adopt your suggested change.

I would suggest that the best way you could address this issue is to go out
and implement exciting products based on this specification, and assign
those products a more marketable, and memorable name.


On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM, 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 00:04:03 UTC

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