please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
|
View:
New views
8 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
by Dan Brickley-2
::
Rate this Message:
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 |
|
|
Re: please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
by Silvia Pfeiffer
::
Rate this Message:
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. Cheers, Silvia. On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@...> 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 > > |
|
|
Re: please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
by Glenn Adams
::
Rate this Message:
Dan,
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.
Regards, Glenn On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@...> wrote: Reviewing http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-ttaf1-dfxp-20090924/#intro |
|
|
Re: please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
by Dan Brickley-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Glen, and thanks also Silvia for the quick reply,
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Glenn Adams <gadams@...> wrote: > Dan, > 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. This is true. I should also congratulate you on reaching this milestone, I know it has been a lot of work. So my apologies for jumping straight in with complaints in my previous message. The reason I feel my comment was particularly relevant to CR was a bit meta. I doubt your technology will get the widespread implementor review and the community excitement that it deserves, not because of any engineering or technical failings, but just because of the name. > 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. I have to admit I thought of raising this a few times in previous years, but it always seemed a bit, well, cheeky. In the last 24 hours, I have received 3 comments from members of the TTAF1-DFXP community which I think make my point for me. You all agree that it will be known by a short name. But you disagree on what that name will be: Here (below) you mention the formal W3C short name "ttaf1-dfxp", but no other abbreviated or convenience name. Meanwhile Silvia wrote "I think that in common language, the format will be known as DFXP". Yesterday, responding via Identi.ca (http://identi.ca/notice/10978839) Philippe Le Hégaret wrote "@danbri I'm happy to convey concrete proposals for new names to the WG. Having said that, folks know the technology as Timed Text already." So, what do we tell the bloggers - ttaf1-dfxp, DFXP or Timed Text? Characteristics of a good informal name for the technology might be: * short * memorable * unambiguous * carries relevant meaning to newcomers For communication outside the world of W3C, the immediate candidates seem to be "DFXP" and "Timed Text". The former is short and has no variants, whereas "Timed Text" is much less cryptic, but has some variants; we could expect to see the whitespace collapsed for use in tags, or the case dropped. Still "timedtext" remains meaningful. Here's a quick survey of how these names are currently used in delicious tags: http://delicious.com/search?p=dfxp&chk=&fr=del_icio_us&lc=0&atags=&rtags=&context=userposts|danbri|&context=all|| dfxp - 27 results http://delicious.com/search?p=timedtext&chk=&context=userposts|danbri&fr=del_icio_us&lc= timedtext - 31 results ttaf1-dfxp - no results This suggests that none of these options are well established (contrast 'mathml' or 'html5', 'html' which are obvious tags). > 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. Sometimes it's best to move process history out of titles, before they get to Recommendation. I say this as the lead editor of another REC, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ "RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema" Now I could give you the whole story for why it has this unwieldy name. But the key point is that the technology is universally known as RDF Schema, and abbreviated 9 times out of 10 as "RDFS" (but occasionally we see "RDF/S"). In short, we downplayed the use of the word "Schema" due to the horrible tensions between RDF and XML people at the time; around 1999-2000 RDFS was seen as a potential rival or threat to XML Schema. So why didn't we call it a basic/simple ontology language? Which is how W3C has subsequently referred to the kind of technology that defines the meaning of terms in RDF. Simply because the final RDFS work was under the RDFCore WG, and an Ontology WG was beginning the first OWL work at the same time, and that group quite reasonably didn't want another group to go publishing a first "ontology" recommendation in parallel. So the awkward name was a product of W3C's process. It was, as you say, accurate and reflects well the end results of a long process. In retrospect, I wish we had just called it "RDF Schema (RDFS) 1.0". > 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. True, but many at least have a short and simple name. "CSS", "MathML" do the job nicely, "SPARQL", "OWL" even have a kind of obscure charm or character. To re-state my concerns, they are that the long name of technology is too long, doesn't describe the technology to a non-insider audience, and doesn't come with a simple, short and memorable abbreviated name suited for tags, conversation, mention in blogs etc. "This is the Candidate Recommendation of the Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)" I can barely say that in one breath. > 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. Keep the formal short name, URL paths and so on. One path might be to distinguish the technology from the specification / document / standard. So the unfortunately named document remains "Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)" but the technology it defines might simply be known as "DFXP" or "Timed Text", or perhaps "Timed Text Web Format (TTWF)". I understand that this seems a last minute request for a big change, after years of work and consensus building. But also I would stress that once it gets to REC, you'll be stuck with it forever. We all will. At a minimum, please agree which informal name you think we should all use in blog posts, tags etc, and make sure this is prominently used in the abstract, in the associated W3C site, press releases, etc. My advice would be to take this up with the W3C Comms team (I've cc:'d Ian) and Director during CR. If they say no, it's all fine, then I'll drop my objection. > 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. I'll get right on that ;) cheers, Dan |
|
|
Re: please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
by Glenn Adams
::
Rate this Message:
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.
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.
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.
Glenn On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Dan Brickley <danbri@...> wrote: Hi Glen, and thanks also Silvia for the quick reply, |
|
|
Re: please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
by Daniel Weck
::
Rate this Message:
Hi all,
The full "technical" name is fine as long as a short "friendly" name is somehow promoted for use by the community at large. As it happens, the Working Group name is "Timed Text", with the subtitle: "Delivering Captioning and Video Description for the Web". Well, guess what: I (and most people I know) tend to use "W3C Timed-Text" or "Timed Text", and we only refer to "DFXP" amongst *really* geeky people (i.e. specification writers or implementors). Will there ever be another deliverable from the "Timed Text" Working Group, other than the affectively-nicknamed "Timed Text" specification (normatively-named "TTAF1-DFXP") ? My guess is no, and the terms "W3C Timed Text" will prevail because in most cases there will be no need to differentiate any further. Admittedly, the compressed term "TTAF1-DFXP" for "Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)" doesn't exactly stir my imagination, but then, it's a formal title for an authoritative specification...not a brand name. The main confusion, I think, stems from the fact that "TTAF1-DFXP" (in its expanded form) mixes "Authoring", "Distribution" and "Exchange" within the same title, in a way that immediately challenges my mental expectations. These terms denote concepts that normally address very different requirements, so my initial impression is that the specification document will simply describe the DFXP profile, and that the actual AF is specified elsewhere (the title is leading me to assume that there are other Profiles defined elsewhere as well). In order to figure-out what this specification means in the *real world*, I need to read the Abstract, the Definitions, and finally the Profiles section which reveals several "sub-profiles" for DFXP (Transformation, Presentation and Full). I am not suggesting that changes are required for the document in its current state. I am merely stating the fact that the confusing title adds another layer of perceived complexity to a specification that is, it is fair to say, a pretty scary beast for implementors. In any case, well done to the working group members for pulling this one out, we all appreciate your dedication and hard work. Kind regards, Daniel On 30 Sep 2009, at 09:56, Dan Brickley wrote: > Hi Glen, and thanks also Silvia for the quick reply, > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Glenn Adams <gadams@...> wrote: >> Dan, >> 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. > > This is true. I should also congratulate you on reaching this > milestone, I know it has been a lot of work. So my apologies for > jumping straight in with complaints in my previous message. The reason > I > feel my comment was particularly relevant to CR was a bit meta. I > doubt your technology will get the > widespread implementor review and the community excitement that it > deserves, not because of > any engineering or technical failings, but just because of the name. > >> 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. > > I have to admit I thought of raising this a few times in previous > years, but it always seemed a bit, well, cheeky. > > In the last 24 hours, I have received 3 comments from members of the > TTAF1-DFXP community which I think make my point for me. You all agree > that it will be known by a short name. But you disagree on what that > name will be: > > Here (below) you mention the formal W3C short name "ttaf1-dfxp", but > no other abbreviated or convenience name. Meanwhile Silvia wrote "I > think that in common language, the format will be known as DFXP". > Yesterday, responding via Identi.ca (http://identi.ca/notice/10978839) > Philippe Le Hégaret wrote "@danbri I'm happy to convey concrete > proposals for new names to the WG. Having said that, folks know the > technology as Timed Text already." > > So, what do we tell the bloggers - ttaf1-dfxp, DFXP or Timed Text? > > Characteristics of a good informal name for the technology might be: > > * short > * memorable > * unambiguous > * carries relevant meaning to newcomers > > For communication outside the world of W3C, the immediate candidates > seem to be "DFXP" and "Timed Text". The former is short and has no > variants, whereas "Timed Text" is much less cryptic, but has some > variants; we could expect to see the whitespace collapsed for use in > tags, or the case dropped. Still "timedtext" remains meaningful. > > Here's a quick survey of how these names are currently used in > delicious tags: > > http://delicious.com/search?p=dfxp&chk=&fr=del_icio_us&lc=0&atags=&rtags=&context=userposts > |danbri|&context=all|| > > dfxp - 27 results > > http://delicious.com/search?p=timedtext&chk=&context=userposts| > danbri&fr=del_icio_us&lc= > > timedtext - 31 results > > ttaf1-dfxp - no results > > > This suggests that none of these options are well established > (contrast 'mathml' or 'html5', 'html' which are obvious tags). > >> 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. > > Sometimes it's best to move process history out of titles, before they > get to Recommendation. I say this as the lead editor of another REC, > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ > > "RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema" > > Now I could give you the whole story for why it has this unwieldy > name. But the key point is that the technology is universally known as > RDF Schema, and abbreviated 9 times out of 10 as "RDFS" (but > occasionally we see "RDF/S"). In short, we downplayed the use of the > word "Schema" due to the horrible tensions between RDF and XML people > at the time; around 1999-2000 RDFS was seen as a potential rival or > threat to XML Schema. > > So why didn't we call it a basic/simple ontology language? Which is > how W3C has subsequently referred to the kind of technology that > defines the meaning of terms in RDF. Simply because the final RDFS > work was under the RDFCore WG, and an Ontology WG was beginning the > first OWL work at the same time, and that group quite reasonably > didn't want another group to go publishing a first "ontology" > recommendation in parallel. > > So the awkward name was a product of W3C's process. It was, as you > say, accurate and reflects well the end results of a long process. In > retrospect, I wish we had just called it "RDF Schema (RDFS) 1.0". > >> 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. > > True, but many at least have a short and simple name. "CSS", "MathML" > do the job nicely, "SPARQL", "OWL" even have a kind of obscure charm > or character. > > To re-state my concerns, they are that the long name of technology is > too long, doesn't describe the technology to a non-insider audience, > and doesn't come with a simple, short and memorable abbreviated name > suited for tags, conversation, mention in blogs etc. > > "This is the Candidate Recommendation of the Timed Text (TT) Authoring > Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)" > > I can barely say that in one breath. > >> 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. > > Keep the formal short name, URL paths and so on. > > One path might be to distinguish the technology from the specification > / document / standard. > > So the unfortunately named document remains "Timed Text (TT) Authoring > Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)" but the > technology it defines might simply be known as "DFXP" or "Timed Text", > or perhaps "Timed Text Web Format (TTWF)". > > I understand that this seems a last minute request for a big change, > after years of work and consensus building. > > But also I would stress that once it gets to REC, you'll be stuck with > it forever. We all will. At a minimum, please agree which informal > name you think we should all use in blog posts, tags etc, and make > sure this is prominently used in the abstract, in the associated W3C > site, press releases, etc. > > My advice would be to take this up with the W3C Comms team (I've cc:'d > Ian) and Director during CR. If they say no, it's all fine, then I'll > drop my objection. > >> 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. > > I'll get right on that ;) > > cheers, > > Dan |
|
|
Re: please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
by Dan Brickley-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Glenn Adams <gadams@...> 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 |
|
|
Re: please rename Timed Text (TT) Authoring Format 1.0 – Distribution Format Exchange Profile (DFXP)
by Glenn Adams
::
Rate this Message:
the reason that it was differentiated as TTAF1-DFXP is because we also had been developing a larger subset, called TTAF1-AFXP, namely "authoring format interchange profile";
at a particular point, the group decided to focus on a subset of a larger set of requirements, and called it DFXP, with the primary purpose of being an interchange system among distribution systems (and, incidentally, able to be directly used for distribution) as opposed to an interchange system among authoring systems (the larger goal of AFXP);
so there was good cause when we created this profile to distinguish it as such; it is certainly possible that the TTWG may in the future take up the larger profile; however, i can't say how probably this might be or its possible timing;
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@...> wrote: Hi all, |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
