Re: WebOTF Proposal

On 7 Aug 2009, at 20:42, Christopher Slye wrote:

>
> 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. :)

I don't have anything against "webfont", except that this *is*  
specifically targeted at OpenType fonts (or should I say, any font  
that exists in an sfnt structure), and we may some day want other  
comparable formats that package other raw font formats. At that point,  
we might regret using the generic "webfont" name for this specific  
format.

Personally (returning to an earlier suggestion from Tal), I think it'd  
be fun to call it Web Type Format (.wtf), which is nicely parallel to  
OpenType (.otf) but doesn't step on any MS toes. Oh, but there's an  
Adobe font product called WebType, I see..... oh well, I guess that  
won't fly.

JK

Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 19:54:09 UTC