"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
Received on Thursday, 27 July 2017 07:59:48 UTC