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 15:18:30 +0000
To: Rachel Comerford <rachel.comerford@macmillan.com>
CC: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0601MB14221FD4C9F3E855B7757AC9DFBE0@CY1PR0601MB1422.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
I hereby retract supporting—I even talked myself out of it when writing that email, so why didn’t I just delete it then? :)

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: Rachel Comerford [mailto:rachel.comerford@macmillan.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:17 AM
To: Bill Kasdorf
Cc: Garth Conboy; Matt Garrish; W3C Publishing Working Group
Subject: Re: resource naming

+1 to primary resource, secondary resource

(not supporting - let's pretend that was never said)

Rachel Comerford | Director of Content Standards | T 212.576.9433

Macmillan Learning

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>> wrote:
+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<tel:(734)%20904-6252>  m:   734-904-6252<tel:(734)%20904-6252>

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<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


Received on Thursday, 27 July 2017 15:18:55 UTC

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