- From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:51:45 +0100
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
In the same vein as the 'Lite' name - of what is it the Lite version? - we can also criticize the name of the 'Version' field. If EOTL files are "version 2.3", of what are they the 2.3rd version? I suggest renaming the Version field to another MagicNumber field. - L Hakon wrote: > Again, the comparison changes if competitors start supporting the > "lite" version, thereby seemingly acknowleding that the standard is > a good idea. > > I don't think "EOT Lite" is such a good idea. I don't *any* standard > should have the word "lite" in it:...
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:52:27 UTC