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

Re: Format name proposals - "Cooperable Web Type"

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:16:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4A9B4079.1080203@tiro.com>
To: rfink@readableweb.com
CC: 'Ricardo Esteves' <ricardo@outrasfontes.com>, www-font@w3.org, 'François REMY' <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, 'Bill Davis' <info@ascenderfonts.com>
Richard Fink wrote:

> 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. 

It seems to me that 'compatibility' perfectly captures the intent of 
something new that is designed to handle legacy issues. This is, in 
fact, precisely how the term is commonly used in software, cf. Word 
'compatibility mode' or IE 'compatibility view'. [Yeah, MS have more 
need of compatibility doo-dads because they've got more legacy code than 
most other developers.]

> 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". 

I don't see the latter as being misleading, and 'cooperable' -- apart 
from the connotations of barrel making -- has no common meaning relative 
to software of which I am aware.


JH
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 03:16:53 GMT

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