Re: [Cellar] Matroska document titles

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Dave,

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 6:00 PM Dave Rice <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 9:01 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Steve,
>
> Thanks very much for following up on this.
>
> For the purpose of this note, please consider that I'm not replying as one
> of the co-chairs.
>
> [deleted down to]

> And I really want to defer to the working group about the actual titles,
> so please do the right thing.
>
> So, here's what I've seen people do with multi-document specifications at
> the IETF.
>
>    - People use common title prefixes in Internet Drafts and RFCs to make
>    it easier to find stuff that is part of the specification, and to not find
>    things that aren't. If something like "Matroska Media Container" as a
>    prefix would apply to any of the specifications you're working on now or
>    thinking about in the future, that would be helpful to your readers. I
>    assumed that form in the following suggestions, so if you can think of a
>    better prefix, please use it to improve the following suggestions!
>    - For "Matroska Tags", that's pretty close to what I'd hope for. If it
>    was "Matroska Media Container Tags", would that work?
>    - For "Matroska Codec" - the abstract says this is actually "Matroska
>    Codec Mappings", so that seems like the title needs to change a bit more.
>    If the document title was something like "Matroska Media Container Codec
>    Mappings", would that work?
>    - For "Matroska Specifications", that probably is too broad (because
>    there are two other Matroska specifications in the working group now). You
>    used the term "core" in your reply, and I know the working group has been
>    considering whether to publish chapters in a separate document, so it seems
>    possible that there will be at least one non-core specification at some
>    point. Would it be accurate to use something like "Matroska Media Container
>    Core Specification" for this one?
>
> I’m not sure about the word ‘Media’, how about:
> Matroska File Format Specification
> Matroska File Format Codec Mappings
> Matroska File Format Metadata Tags
>
> I think the term “File Format” is a bit more accessible than “Container”.
> Also I see that MXF uses similar wording at
> http://web.archive.org/web/20051210203751/http://www.smpte.org/smpte_store/standards/pdf/s377m.pdf
> .
>
> There are (many) other titles that would work for me, so please don't
> focus on the details.
>
> I still want to defer to the working group on the exact titles, but your
proposals capture the ideas I was trying to convey in my proposals (looks
like a document set, clearer what the relationship between the documents
is, and titles seem clear to me).

And thanks for the pointer to the MXF document. It may be useful to match
their terminology, given an opportunity to do so.

Do The Right Thing, of course :-)

Best,

Spencer