- From: Julio Gonzalez <juliog@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:52:24 -0700
- To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, WOFF Working Group <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
My idea of framework is something that you build upon. I'm with Chris here. Julio On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Christopher Slye wrote: > Vlad, could you elaborate on why you think that "framework" "provides a better definition of what we are trying to achieve"? > > WOFF really is a "format", isn't it? I understand the concern for confusion about that word, but I'm not convinced "framework" is more accurate. All of the container formats (frameworks?) I can think of are customarily called "formats". > > -C > > > On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote: > >> I would like to raise the following question for your consideration: would it be possible and/or desirable to make a slight change of the name of the specification? This question was prompted by a recent event – at the recent Advisory Board F2F meeting on August 9, 2010 the progress of the WOFF spec and the publication of FPWD were mentioned as an important milestone. >> >> The meeting minutes [1] spelled WOFF as the “Web Open Font Framework” (note the use of the word “Framework” instead of “Format”), which is something I actually like a lot. If it is possible, and if the WG would agree to name it this way – I think we would avoid many questions in the future about WOFF as a “font format”. The new name “Web Open Font Framework” would allow to keep the same abbreviation WOFF, and, IMHO, provides a better definition of what we are trying to achieve. >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2010 20:58:07 UTC