- From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:33:03 -0700
- To: rfink@readableweb.com
- Cc: Ricardo Esteves <ricardo@outrasfontes.com>, www-font@w3.org, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, Bill Davis <info@ascenderfonts.com>
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Richard Fink<rfink@readableweb.com> wrote: > And that's why I'm still bothered by "compatibility" or "compatible" in the > name. It just rings false. > Ok, ok, I know I said I considered this issue resolved as far as I was > concerned but it's been gnawing at me and another word popped into my head. > I put it into the title line of this post. > It seems like the word "Co-operable" (or the unhyphenated "cooperable") > could be a viable candidate here. It's free of the misleading connotations > that come with "Compatibility" or "Compatible". It's more neutral. And sort > of a first cousin to "interoperable". > "Co-operable with what?", well, with Internet Explorer, of course. > And we've still got the "C" for .CWT No offense but... ugh. "Compatibility Web Type" is a fine suggestion, IMO. It's certainly good *enough*. Cheers, T
Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 16:33:45 UTC