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

Re: WebOTF Proposal

From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:42:45 -0700
CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <15013D66-E8B6-46A3-AD45-335CA7B22F17@adobe.com>
To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>

On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote:

> 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?

First: IANAL.

I don't see any particular problem with anything so far... I only  
wanted to throw out that caution in case anyone was tempted to  
*formally* name this something like "WebOpenType, or WebOTF for short"  
or something like that.

I am actually not so excited about "WebOTF" as a name. Was it  
necessary to toss out "webfont"? Two syllables is better than four. :)

-Christopher
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 19:43:26 GMT

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