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

(wrong string) €“ Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:22:17 +0200
Message-ID: <eb19f3360909300322r2b82d48ft1c155d1550a4e9de@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <gadams@xfsi.com>
Cc: public-tt@w3.org, plh@w3.org, ian@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Glenn Adams <gadams@xfsi.com> wrote:
> As an informal short name, "DFXP" is fine; however, the official short name
> will remain "ttaf1-dfxp" which is encoded in the DFXP namespace URIs. That
> having been said, I believe the TTWG will decline to make any change to the
> specification's title. For what its worth, you have my permission to use the
> informal short name (i.e., "DFXP") and to publicize it on that basis. Or, if
> you have something more catchy, give it a try.

Fixing in an information short name seems a good start. Although
Philippe suggested "Timed Text" (perhaps a little general), "DFXP"
does the job, so long as everyone agrees to use it (so you might
coordinate with Philippe on that point). As you say, "MP3" is somewhat
obscure but became a well known name.

Re: more catchy, perhaps we can work within the pragmatic constraint
of DFXP as the chosen informal name, and work backwards to an
alternative expansion. Silvia wrote "Doesn't even need a full
spell-out of what "DFXP" stands for.". I agree that the current
expansion isn't very helpful. But maybe there are other phrases that
expand to DFXP which capture something of the application domain?

 * Digital Footnotes Exchange Profile (or Protocol, though that might mislead)
 * Dynamic Footnote XML P-something
 * Distributed Film X-something Publishing
 * Distributed Footnote XML Publishing
 * Digital Footnote Extension P-something

OK, none of those are super-catchy. But it's conceivable we could find
something that fits the existing acronym... "Footnote" and "Film"
aren't quite the right scope, but they do at least hint at the
application area.

> I'm not worried about TTAF or TTAF1-DFXP or DFXP, whatever you prefer to
> call it, succeeding or failing on the strength of its name. If it fails to
> be adopted, it won't be because of its name.

Things rarely fail for a single reason. My suggested edits to the
Abstract reflect a related concern about the way this technology is
being positioned and described...

> MP3 stands for MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, which in turn, stands for "Moving
> Picture Expert Group Series 1, Audio Layer III" which is formally defined by
> "ISO/IEC 11172-3 Information technology -- Coding of moving pictures and
> associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s -- Part
> 3: Audio". Nowhere in that document does the acronym "MP3" appear, and yet
> it is widely known by that term and widely implemented and eminently
> successful.

Yes, MP3 did well. Mostly because it was the name for a technology
related to easy aquisition of online music. But it did have a very
short if cryptic name. DFXP could be comparable.

* "What's this?" "It's a DFXP file."
* "But the audio is in French." "So download a DFXP."
* "How does the find-a-scene search work?" "It indexes the DFXP"
* "Can you put the subtitles in a bigger font?" "Sure, it uses DFXP...."

All that sounds fine to me, although the lack of a useful acronym
expansion is a shame. Something with Timed Text in it appeals to me a
bit more, but I can understand the reluctance to change things at this
stage. Whatever you do, please pick one and stick with it! And hide
all that stuff about authoring versus exchange, it doesn't make sense
to 99% of your audience....

cheers,

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 10:22:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:43 GMT