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

RE: resource naming

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:14:09 +0000
To: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
CC: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0601MB1422A717268D2BE8A6A1501BDFBE0@CY1PR0601MB1422.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
+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


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).


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 15:14:33 UTC

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