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

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:14:39 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908041514g5e16266cv4f5f1278dd07d40b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Laurence Penney<lorp@lorp.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> If this is going to be a concern, then I agree with Laurence here.
> Just for propriety's sake.
>
> So, what do we want to name it?  OTH (OpenType with Header)?  OTE
> (OpenType Embedded)?  OTW (OpenType Webfont)?  MGPOT (Magical Girl
> Pretty OpenType)?

Ooh!  Ooh!  WROTE - Web-Ready OpenType Embedding.  I love clever acronyms.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:15:39 GMT

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