I prefer .sfnt as well. we shouldn't feel limited by DOS. Just my 2 cents...
Alex --- Andrew C Aitchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10 Jul 2003, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > > I need to pick an extension for the bitmap-only SFNT fonts[1]. > While > > these fonts use the same file format as TrueType and OpenType > fonts, > > they do not fullfill the requirements of any of the four (!) > TrueType > > specifications. Apple calls them ``sfnt-wrapped bitmap fonts'', > > pfaedit calls them ``bitmap-only TTF fonts'', and Microsoft do not > > call them at all. These fonts are refused by Windows XP. > > > > Because users expect files with a ttf or otf extension to contain > > scalable fonts, they need to have a different extension. Such > fonts > > are used by Apple (who do not use file extensions), but not by > > Microsoft (who do); hence, I believe I need to pick a new one. > > > > I suggest they should have the extension ``.sfnt'', with ``.sfn'' > > being recognised for compatibility with 8+3 systems. > > I see that Julian also knows about .snf fonts (I think that > suggestion > that anyone still using them should move *into* the 1980s is a little > unfair - they need to move *out of* the 1980s). > Still .sfn is too close to .snf; I vote for ".sfnt". > > Andrew C Aitchison > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
