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

Re: Format name proposals - "Cooperable Web Type"

From: Thomas Phinney <tphinney@cal.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:33:03 -0700
Message-ID: <f49ae6ac0908300933u5900041ft506501310129e6b4@mail.gmail.com>
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*.


Received on Sunday, 30 August 2009 16:33:45 UTC

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