- From: James Nash via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 23:26:36 +0000
- To: public-design-tokens-log@w3.org
Just catching up on all the replies here. Really interesting stuff! Thanks everyone for sharing. I wonder if terms like "source" or "manifest" files refer to broader concepts that are not unique to the DTCG file format. For example, the files used with current versions of Style Dictionary could be considered "source" token files (since they contain the _source_ design tokens that SD translates into whatever output formats you need). However, their internal structure does not follow our spec, so they're a different file format. I suppose that doesn't necessarily rule out adopting a name along the lines of "DTS (Design Token Source)" or the other variations that @icona79 suggested. But, as @CITguy pointed out, these files are not necessarily the _source_ of your design token data. In other setups, they might just be used to transfer design token data between tools (So, "Design Token Exchange Files" or DXF, perhaps? 😛) I therefore wonder if it's best to avoid names that describe/assume a specific kind of use-case or workflow. (Aside: It's definitely useful to continue the discussion on broader terminology. However, I'm keen to get more insights and ideas on how to _differentiate_ DTCG format design token files from other kinds of token file formats that are out there.) This comment from @TravisSpomer's also my attention: > When we distinguish between files in this format and our original format, we use phrases like "W3C token JSON" (or, if you're trying to be funny, "DTF file") and "proprietary token JSON." I've noticed variations of "W3C" format being used to refer to files that follow the DTCG spec elsewhere too. For example "[Design Tokens Generator](https://tokens.layoutit.com/)" can save out tokens in various formats and uses the label "W3C" for the DTCG ones:  Trouble is, that's misleading. While the DTCG _is_ a W3C _community_ group, it is not a W3C Working Group. The technical reports published by the DTCG are therefore not W3C Standards nor are they on the W3C Standards Track. I therefore think that the DTCG needs to discourage referring to the file format as "W3C design token files" or similar. However, the above screenshot from the Design Token Generator does nicely demonstrate the need for some kind of name: If we shouldn't use "W3C", then what should go onto that tab? Perhaps "DTCG files" can be a candidate? * It doesn't contain presumptions about how/where the files are used * It avoids misrepresenting the format's status with the W3C * There's a precedent for this style of naming. (For example, JPEG is short for "Joint Photographic Experts Group") Thoughts? Better ideas? Btw, whatever we land on, should we perhaps also update the suggested file extension in the spec. For example, we want to encourage people and tools to refer to these files as "DTCG files", then `.dtcg` or `.dtcg.json` might be more appropriate than `.tokens`/`.tokens.json`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by c1rrus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/design-tokens/community-group/issues/164#issuecomment-1324362856 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2022 23:26:38 UTC