- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:14:39 -0500
- To: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.<jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Laurence Penney<lorp@lorp.org> 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. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:15:39 UTC