Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Laurence Penney<> wrote:
>> In the same vein as the 'Lite' name - of what is it the Lite version? - we
>> can also criticize the name of the 'Version' field. If EOTL files are
>> "version 2.3", of what are they the 2.3rd version?
>> I suggest renaming the Version field to another MagicNumber field.
> If this is going to be a concern, then I agree with Laurence here.
> Just for propriety's sake.
> So, what do we want to name it?  OTH (OpenType with Header)?  OTE
> (OpenType Embedded)?  OTW (OpenType Webfont)?  MGPOT (Magical Girl
> Pretty OpenType)?

Ooh!  Ooh!  WROTE - Web-Ready OpenType Embedding.  I love clever acronyms.


Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:15:39 UTC