RE: Format name proposals

Hello Rich, all,

Just a few thoughts:
1) I'd prefer compatibility over legacy - it sounds better and conveys the exact meaning of what EOTL is. Either compatibility or compatible web type is fine with me (I wish we could used .CWF for "compatible web font", but it's been taken, twice.)

2) Font data format (be it EOT, EOTL or TTF or anything else) has nothing to do with @font-face compliance. IE may have some quirks implementing @font-face, but it's not due to the EOT, it's just "a fact on the ground". So, the answer to the question you put in parentheses is indeed "yes, EOTL is compliant with @font-face, although older IE versions may have some issues".

Cheers,
Vlad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Fink
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:05 AM
> To: 'François REMY'; 'John Hudson'
> Cc: 'Bill Davis'; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Format name proposals
> 
> Friday, August 28, 2009 François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>:
> 
> Francois, John, Bill,
> 
> This is my second and last post on this because at the end of the day,
> as
> François cum Shakespeare would say: the implementation's the thing.
> But the packaging on the box counts, too - it gives people a clue to
> what's
> inside.
> The idea that you fellows don't consider EOTL or *any* variation of EOT
> to
> be a legacy format amazes me. Splitting hairs if you ask me.
> The dictionary says of "legacy":
> 
> Noun: 'anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or
> predecessor: the legacy of ancient Rome.' (Or Internet Explorer.)
> 
> Adjective: 'of or pertaining to old or outdated computer hardware,
> software,
> or data that, while still functional, does not work well with up-to-
> date
> systems.' (EOTL works, but is it compliant, today, with the spec for
> @font-face? No.)
> 
> The word "legacy" popped into my head because I was looking for a word
> that
> would:
> 1) Speak to the provenance of the format, it's origin, as being
> something
> handed down from the past.
> 2) Label the format as something akin to "deprecated", with WOFF (or
> whatever the name .webOTF morphs into) being the preferred format going
> forward, as support for it grows and will allow.
> 
> That said, anything it ends up being is fine with me.
> Now's the time to nail it down, though.
> Thoughts from anyone else?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> rich
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of
> François REMY
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 6:44 PM
> To: John Hudson; rfink@readableweb.com
> Cc: 'Bill Davis'; www-font@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Format name proposals
> 
> 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
> format.
> 
> *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 20:58:10 UTC