W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > September 2010

Re: WOFF specification name

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:32:29 +0200
Message-ID: <64994928.20100901113229@w3.org>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 9:07:29 PM, Vladimir wrote:

LV> 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.

LV> I guess the problem is rooted in the fact that WOFF name is very
LV> similar to ISO "Open Font Format", which *is* a font format
LV> specification. WOFF is likely be seen as "Web OFF", hence the
LV> popular but false conviction that it is another font format.

Or, that it is a web delivery wrapper for Open Font Format. In other words, the format is what is inside, and is really a format.

Other containers can also be called formats. People talk of video being on .mov format (quicktime is a container) or .mkv format (matrovska is a container), for example.

I admit that 'framework' does not make much sense to me. I wouldn't read too much intention into the typo in the AB minutes. And the link from those minutes (also Member-only, but containing no information not also available to the public) announcing first public working draft expands the acronym correctly as Web Open Font Format

 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 09:32:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:14 UTC