W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Format name proposals

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:43:34 +0200
Message-ID: <07413A39B8CD4CFCA10A383EE1BA2323@FREMYCOMPANY>
To: "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>, <rfink@readableweb.com>
Cc: "'Bill Davis'" <info@ascenderfonts.com>, <www-font@w3.org>
Compatibility Web Type fails because it's not correct grammatically and is 
difficult to say. I don't like it.
Compatible Web Type is correct grammatically, but it doens't have the same 
meaning, even if they're very close.
Same applies for Legacy Web Type. And, as you stated, EOTL is not a legacy 

*Compatible* Web Font (CWF) sounds great for me. BTW, the name doesn't 
matter. Only the implementation does.

From: "John Hudson" <tiro@tiro.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:10 AM
To: <rfink@readableweb.com>
Cc: "'Bill Davis'" <info@ascenderfonts.com>; <www-font@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Format name proposals

> 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 Saturday, 29 August 2009 07:48:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:33 UTC