W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: EOT & DMCA concerns

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:07:14 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908041507l18b32888ia5c7adaecd691413@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
Cc: HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
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)?

Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:35:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC