- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:48:20 -0700
- 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 mode'. > 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 meanings. > *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. J.
Received on Saturday, 29 August 2009 19:49:02 UTC