RE: resource naming

+1 to “primary resource,” and also to either “secondary resource” or “supporting resource” for the other resources. While “supporting” has more meaning, there’s an appeal to the neutrality of “secondary”: it is subordinate to primary but doesn’t imply anything else about the nature or purpose of the resource. So I’m talking myself into “primary resource” and “secondary resource.”

Bill Kasdorf

VP and Principal Consultant | Apex CoVantage

p:

734-904-6252  m:   734-904-6252

ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786

ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>


From: Garth Conboy [mailto:garth@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 11:43 PM
To: Matt Garrish
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group
Subject: Re: resource naming

+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