Excuse the superficial review, but it looks like JSON, not C. Why the name association with C, apart from the fact that you can include C libs? Vala or D look much closer to C.
The main implementation is still a source-to-source translator to C99 so the name association is still justified.
Plus, if you don't like "ooc = object oriented C", you have plenty of choice. My personal favorite is "only on caturday". But YMMV.
And a name change isn't excluded, do you have any cool language name idea?
I have no real suggestions, but it's worth noting that some popular languages have names with no relationship to the language (Java, Python, Ruby). I think perhaps the most important criteria are that it's a single syllable, easy to say, easy to type and doesn't have unfortunate associations.
ooc is indeed not a superset of C syntactically. Objective-C is there for that, and its syntax is (imho) a mess.
You can mix and match C and ooc code at will =)
"Backwards compatible" implies, to me, that if I take out the new features from the language, I'm left with legal code in the original language. This is markedly different than being able to call one language from another. I can call Fortran code from C, and I would never characterize Fortran and C as "backwards compatible."
One is about source code compatibility. The other is about object code compatibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_character
On a serious note: if you label your language as a C, people will be expect C syntax.
I once stumbled upon BitC, but was disappointed because it looked like LISP.