- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:07:29 -0400
- To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
- CC: WOFF Working Group <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:52 PM John Hudson wrote: > > While I'm sensitive to the explanatory problem we've created in using > the term format, I'm not sure that 'framework' really captures what > we're specifying, and in terms of a file extension .woff it doesn't > make much sense to talk about serving a framework. > I guess the problem is rooted in the fact that WOFF name is very similar to ISO "Open Font Format", which *is* a font format specification. WOFF is likely be seen as "Web OFF", hence the popular but false conviction that it is another font format. > I'm trying to think of a word that begins with F that suggests a > container. Unfortunately, all I can come up with is Web Open Font > Firkin. :) LOL :D I can imaging serving it on the Web ;) I guess we are stuck with "format". Cheers, Vlad
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 19:07:56 UTC