Re: resource naming

I am also OK with primary resource.  It’s not great, but it works.

(NOTE: my thinking on why it’s not perfect is that given our Mona Lisa example, the image of painting referenced by some content would be more primary to the publication than the rest of the content)

Leonard

From: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>
Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 4:00 AM
To: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: resource naming
Resent-From: <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 3:59 AM

"a resource in the spine/reading order": +1 to « primary resource » (Garth, that’s not just you…)

Perhaps then clarified with :

  *   « inside the boundaries »
  *   « created by the author of the publication »
  *   « complete/initialized at pub date »
Luc

De : Garth Conboy <garth@google.com<mailto:garth@google.com>>
Date : jeudi 27 juillet 2017 à 05:42
À : Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>>
Cc : W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-publ-wg@w3.org>>
Objet : Re: resource naming
Renvoyer - De : <public-publ-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-publ-wg@w3.org>>
Renvoyer - Date : jeudi 27 juillet 2017 à 05:43

+1 to "primary resource" (but that's just me).

Best,
   Garth

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>> wrote:
One question we keep bumping into, as on the last call, is what to call a resource in the spine/reading order (whatever your preferred terminology is).

Is "primary resource" good enough? Do we need something more descriptive, like epub's "content document"?

The corollary question is do we need a name for all other resources to clearly separate, and if so, what? Subresources?

Matt