- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:32:29 +0200
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- CC: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 9:07:29 PM, Vladimir wrote: LV> On Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:52 PM John Hudson wrote: >> While I'm sensitive to the explanatory problem we've created in using >> the term format, I'm not sure that 'framework' really captures what >> we're specifying, and in terms of a file extension .woff it doesn't >> make much sense to talk about serving a framework. LV> I guess the problem is rooted in the fact that WOFF name is very LV> similar to ISO "Open Font Format", which *is* a font format LV> specification. WOFF is likely be seen as "Web OFF", hence the LV> popular but false conviction that it is another font format. Or, that it is a web delivery wrapper for Open Font Format. In other words, the format is what is inside, and is really a format. Other containers can also be called formats. People talk of video being on .mov format (quicktime is a container) or .mkv format (matrovska is a container), for example. I admit that 'framework' does not make much sense to me. I wouldn't read too much intention into the typo in the AB minutes. And the link from those minutes (also Member-only, but containing no information not also available to the public) announcing first public working draft expands the acronym correctly as Web Open Font Format http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2010JulSep/0030 -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 09:32:31 UTC