Re: WOFF specification name

My problem is more the sound of the word 'woff'.  It sounds like the sound (with apologies to Clarus the dog-cow <http://www.storybytes.com/view-moof/articles/mim.html>) like the sound a dog with a chest-cold makes.  (woof+cough).

But maybe this is a minor issue in the great grand scheme of things.  Or an opportunity for a logo or mascot :-(

On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:52 , Julio Gonzalez wrote:

> My idea of framework is something that you build upon. I'm with Chris here.
> 
> Julio
> 
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Christopher Slye wrote:
> 
>> Vlad, could you elaborate on why you think that "framework" "provides a better definition of what we are trying to achieve"?
>> 
>> WOFF really is a "format", isn't it? I understand the concern for confusion about that word, but I'm not convinced "framework" is more accurate. All of the container formats (frameworks?) I can think of are customarily called "formats".
>> 
>> -C
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
>> 
>>> I would like to raise the following question for your consideration: would it be possible and/or desirable to make a slight change of the name of the specification? This question was prompted by a recent event – at the recent Advisory Board F2F meeting on August 9, 2010 the progress of the WOFF spec and the publication of FPWD were mentioned as an important milestone.
>>> 
>>> The meeting minutes [1] spelled WOFF as the “Web Open Font Framework” (note the use of the word “Framework” instead of “Format”), which is something I actually like a lot. If it is possible, and if the WG would agree to name it this way – I think we would avoid many questions in the future about WOFF as a “font format”. The new name “Web Open Font Framework” would allow to keep the same abbreviation WOFF, and, IMHO, provides a better definition of what we are trying to achieve.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 22:04:31 UTC