- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:10:50 -0700
- To: rfink@readableweb.com
- CC: 'Bill Davis' <info@ascenderfonts.com>, www-font@w3.org
Richard Fink wrote: > CWT for “Compatible Web Type” sounds too flattering. Note that my proposal was for Compatibility Web Type not 'compatible'. The implication of the name is that this format exists for compatibility purposes, in this case backwards compatibility. > How about LWT (if available) for “Legacy Web Type”. But it isn't a legacy format. The legacy format is EOT. This is a new format that is compatible with software that used the legacy format. Hence, I stick with my 'compatibility' suggestion. John Hudson
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 22:11:35 UTC