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

Re: Format name proposals

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:48:20 -0700
Message-ID: <4A998604.3000701@tiro.com>
To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
CC: rfink@readableweb.com, 'Bill Davis' <info@ascenderfonts.com>, www-font@w3.org
François REMY wrote:

> Compatibility Web Type fails because it's not correct grammatically 

In English, this is a perfectly grammatical label. It is a compound 
noun. It also directly parallels related usages such as 'compatibility 

> Compatible Web Type is correct grammatically, but it doens't have the 
> same meaning, even if they're very close.

The fact that they don't have the same meaning further indicates that 
both are grammatically correct: they grammatically express different 

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

I would prefer font to type, also, but unfortunately, the file extension 
.cwf is already in use.

Received on Saturday, 29 August 2009 19:49:02 UTC

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