RE: Format name proposals - "Cooperable Web Type"

On Sunday, August 30, 2009 12:02 PM Richard Fink wrote:
> 
> Saturday, August 29, 2009 Ricardo Esteves Ricardo Esteves
> <Ricardo@outrasfontes.com>:
> 
> >> EOTL is compliant with @font-face, although older IE versions may
> have
> some issues".
> 
> >Considerable issues, I might say
> 
> I agree with Ricardo. The syntactical hassles are not as minor as Vlad
> presents them.
> 

Whether issues are major or minor is not the point I was trying to make. Whatever the issues are - they are related to @font-face implementation, and not in any way dependent on EOT or EOTL.

And, as far as lack of support for font-style is concerned, the simple work around is to create separate font resources with different font names (with style being part of the name) for each 'real' italic, bold or bold-italic font. I know it's not a perfect solution but a solution nevertheless.

Again, the point is that EOT or EOTL should not be blamed for the IE6-8 quirks in implementing @font-face.

The main purpose of EOTL is to offer backward-compatible solution, hence "compatibility" or "compatible" as part of the name sounds right to me.

Regards
Vlad


> Plus, consider the following statement regarding TTF/OTF --> EOTL
> conversion
> from Ascender:
> "A legacy constraint of EOT is that the Windows Full Name string must
> be
> equal to the Family Name + Subfamily Name (or simply equal to the
> Family
> Name, when the Subfamily Name is "Regular"). If the font does not meet
> this
> requirement, conversion to EOT will fail."
> 
> Notice the use of the phrase "legacy constraint". (And, BTW, I've had
> to
> modify quite a few files because of this. It's not an oddball problem
> by any
> means.)
> 
> 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
> 
> OK, now I'm done. No big deal either way.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> rich
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of
> Ricardo Esteves
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 8:45 PM
> To: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Format name proposals
> 
> > EOTL is compliant with @font-face, although older IE versions may
> have
> some issues".
> 
> Considerable issues, I might say, as it doesn't support simple linking
> to real Bold and Italic fonts, for instance. It would be nice to see
> it improved in IE9. I'm not an advocate of any other browser, just
> pointing one of the issues that have great importance for type design
> and type usage.
> 
> --
> Ricardo
>

Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 01:51:08 UTC