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

RE: Format name proposals - "Cooperable Web Type"

From: Richard Fink <rfink@readableweb.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:01:33 -0400
To: "'Ricardo Esteves'" <ricardo@outrasfontes.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
Cc: "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>, 'François REMY' <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "'Bill Davis'" <info@ascenderfonts.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01ca298b$26d2e9b0$7478bd10$@com>
Saturday, August 29, 2009 Ricardo Esteves Ricardo Esteves
<Ricardo@outrasfontes.com>:

>> EOTL is compliant with @font-face, although older IE versions may have
some issues".

>Considerable issues, I might say

I agree with Ricardo. The syntactical hassles are not as minor as Vlad
presents them.

Plus, consider the following statement regarding TTF/OTF --> EOTL conversion
from Ascender:
"A legacy constraint of EOT is that the Windows Full Name string must be
equal to the Family Name + Subfamily Name (or simply equal to the Family
Name, when the Subfamily Name is "Regular"). If the font does not meet this
requirement, conversion to EOT will fail."

Notice the use of the phrase "legacy constraint". (And, BTW, I've had to
modify quite a few files because of this. It's not an oddball problem by any
means.)

And that's why I'm still bothered by "compatibility" or "compatible" in the
name. It just rings false. 
Ok, ok, I know I said I considered this issue resolved as far as I was
concerned but it's been gnawing at me and another word popped into my head.
I put it into the title line of this post.
It seems like the word "Co-operable" (or the unhyphenated "cooperable")
could be a viable candidate here. It's free of the misleading connotations
that come with "Compatibility" or "Compatible". It's more neutral. And sort
of a first cousin to "interoperable".
"Co-operable with what?", well, with Internet Explorer, of course. 
And we've still got the "C" for .CWT

OK, now I'm done. No big deal either way.

Regards,

rich

-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Ricardo Esteves
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 8:45 PM
To: www-font@w3.org
Subject: Re: Format name proposals

> EOTL is compliant with @font-face, although older IE versions may have
some issues".

Considerable issues, I might say, as it doesn't support simple linking
to real Bold and Italic fonts, for instance. It would be nice to see
it improved in IE9. I'm not an advocate of any other browser, just
pointing one of the issues that have great importance for type design
and type usage.

-- 
Ricardo
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 16:02:16 GMT

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