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

Re: WebOTF Proposal

From: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:31:31 +0100
To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
Message-Id: <2444041A-0E9F-4D4C-8706-467DFFB68CF9@jfkew.plus.com>
Cc: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On 7 Aug 2009, at 20:02, Christopher Slye wrote:

>
> On Aug 7, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
>
>> Yes, any sfnt can be packaged this way. This is a repackaging of
>> "OpenType the Font Format", as distinct from anything to do with
>> "OpenType the Text Layout Model". (I wish the term "OpenType" weren't
>> so overloaded. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen  
>> users,
>> and even developers, utterly confused by it.)
>
> And keep in mind that "OpenType" is a registered trademark of  
> Microsoft, so you'll probably want to avoid formally attaching that  
> name to this proposal.

Hmmm. OK, let's call it "Web-optimized repackaging of ISO/IEC  
14496-22:2009 : Information technology -- Coding of audio-visual  
objects -- Part 22: Open Font Format". That rolls off the tongue  
nicely, and it'll be great as a file extension. :)

Seriously, though, I think we can still call the format WebOTF, can't  
we? In theory it could be WebOFF, because the ISO standard calls it  
the Open Font Format, but nobody actually uses that term. I guess we  
can try to avoid using the term "OpenType", and prefer references to  
"sfnt tables" and so on, but surely it's OK to refer to other  
standards like TrueType (an Apple trademark), OpenType (MS), or even  
PostScript (Adobe) in the course of the description?

Does that seem like a problem? Any better suggestions?

JK
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 19:34:31 GMT

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