Re: Format name proposals

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