W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:51:45 +0100
Message-Id: <40F5A16E-713C-4042-B553-52A6162A19F1@lorp.org>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 11 June 2011 00:14:03 GMT