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

Format name proposals

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:32:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4A8A04C2.7060402@tiro.com>
To: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Modest proposals:

Following on from previous discussions about the naming of proposed web 
font formats -- and particularly the sensible notion to rename EOTL in 
some way that does not reference EOT, thereby removing the suggestion 
that implementing user agents might need to do anything with EOT fonts 
--, I've been thinking about how naming might also suggest the 
appropriate relationship of the two proposed formats, currently labelled 
EOTL and WebOTF.

Since the singular benefit of EOTL is that is provides a significant 
measure of backwards compatibility with EOT support in IE68, why not 
reflect this in the name? I propose that EOTL be renamed

	Compatibility Web Type

with the file extensions .cwt. [I chose Type instead of Font, because 
.cwf is already in use for CorelDraw Workplace File. Grrr.]

This name makes clear that EOTL is being put forward as a compatibility 
format that enables web authors and designers to use @font-face in a way 
that is compatible with IE68 and also with other browsers implementing 
this format.

As a parallel, I suggest that the WebOTF format be renamed

	Open Web Type

which has the benefit of avoiding Microsoft's OpenType trademark, while 
still retaining a clear link to OT/OFF as the underlying fontdata format.

[By the way, since the OT and OFF specs are not formally identical and 
with no guarantee against them diverging at some stage, I wonder if 
there is a benefit to the web font format in choosing one of these as 
the formal definition of the fontdata format?]


John Hudson
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 01:33:33 GMT

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