- From: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:42:45 -0700
- To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- CC: www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Jonathan Kew wrote: > Hmmm. OK, let's call it "Web-optimized repackaging of ISO/IEC > 14496-22:2009 : Information technology -- Coding of audio-visual > objects -- Part 22: Open Font Format". That rolls off the tongue > nicely, and it'll be great as a file extension. :) > > Seriously, though, I think we can still call the format WebOTF, can't > we? In theory it could be WebOFF, because the ISO standard calls it > the Open Font Format, but nobody actually uses that term. I guess we > can try to avoid using the term "OpenType", and prefer references to > "sfnt tables" and so on, but surely it's OK to refer to other > standards like TrueType (an Apple trademark), OpenType (MS), or even > PostScript (Adobe) in the course of the description? > > Does that seem like a problem? Any better suggestions? First: IANAL. I don't see any particular problem with anything so far... I only wanted to throw out that caution in case anyone was tempted to *formally* name this something like "WebOpenType, or WebOTF for short" or something like that. I am actually not so excited about "WebOTF" as a name. Was it necessary to toss out "webfont"? Two syllables is better than four. :) -Christopher
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 19:43:26 UTC