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

Re: Format name proposals

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:10:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4A9855EA.8050009@tiro.com>
To: rfink@readableweb.com
CC: 'Bill Davis' <info@ascenderfonts.com>, www-font@w3.org
Richard Fink wrote:

> CWT for “Compatible Web Type” sounds too flattering.

Note that my proposal was for

	Compatibility Web Type

not 'compatible'. The implication of the name is that this format exists 
for compatibility purposes, in this case backwards compatibility.

> How about LWT (if available) for “Legacy Web Type”.

But it isn't a legacy format. The legacy format is EOT. This is a new 
format that is compatible with software that used the legacy format. 
Hence, I stick with my 'compatibility' suggestion.

John Hudson
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 22:11:35 GMT

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