- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:07:14 -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 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)? ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:35:07 UTC