- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:16:09 -0700
- 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 UTC