- From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:06:28 -0700
- To: Ben Weiner <ben@readingtype.org.uk>
- Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Given that there is no connection between EOTL and EOTC, we should drop the XOR and MTX bits, change the magic number, and make sure that no EOTC processor accidentally mistakes an EOTL file as something it can render. -t On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 23:58 +0100, Ben Weiner wrote: > Hi, > > Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > It would improve the format, IMHO, to give it a name that doesn't > > include "EOT". > Indeed; that will help the historians if no-one else. > > > > I offer "Web Open Type". Let the bikeshedding begin! > I prefer names that get away from 'embed' because you do not embed a > font in a web page in the same way that you embed it in a PDF. > > I think Web Type Format, WTF, has probably already been suggested ;-)
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 23:07:09 UTC