W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > July 2017

Re: resource naming

From: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:59:24 +0200
To: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
CC: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D59F68AB.C00C7%laudrain@hachette-livre.fr>
"a resource in the spine/reading order": +1 to  primary resource  (Garth, thats not just you)

Perhaps then clarified with :

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


De : Garth Conboy <garth@google.com<mailto:garth@google.com>>
Date : jeudi 27 juillet 2017  05:42
 : 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  05:43

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


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?

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:14 UTC