Re: Format name proposals

On 18 Aug 2009, at 02:32, John Hudson wrote:

> As a parallel, I suggest that the WebOTF format be renamed
> 	Open Web Type
> which has the benefit of avoiding Microsoft's OpenType trademark,  
> while still retaining a clear link to OT/OFF as the underlying  
> fontdata format.

As it happens, we (WebOTF authors) have just recently been discussing  
a name change, for this very reason. The current idea is WOFF; does  
that seem acceptable to you?

> [By the way, since the OT and OFF specs are not formally identical  
> and with no guarantee against them diverging at some stage, I wonder  
> if there is a benefit to the web font format in choosing one of  
> these as the formal definition of the fontdata format?]

I'm not sure there's any real benefit there. WebOTF or WOFF or  
whatever we call it is really a repackaging of sfnt data, and is  
independent of the details of what's inside the sfnt tables. It's true  
that if OpenType and OFF were to diverge, implementers would have to  
choose what to support, but that's equally true for "raw" sfnt data as  
for sfnt-repackaged-in-EOT/EOTL/WOFF/whatever, and doesn't directly  
affect the actual web-repackaging formats.

(Note that even if OT/OFF don't diverge, the issue of choosing what to  
support already exists. Not all software supports both TrueType and  
CFF outlines. Not all software supports all the layout tables, or all  
the possible features that can be included in them. Not all software  
supports bitmap data in sfnt containers. Unfortunately, I don't think  
it's realistic for the web font format(s) to try and legislate  
precisely what (sub)set of OpenType/OFF has to be implemented; that'll  
just turn into another never-ending debate.)


Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:53:18 UTC