Re: resource naming

Supporting implies it's performing an action whereas secondary is simple
hierarchy - IMHO, supporting will lead to an epic email chain.

Rachel Comerford | Director of Content Standards | T 212.576.9433

*Macmillan Learning*

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
wrote:

> Okay, it’s back on the table. There is a case for the more meaningful
> “supporting.” I still vote for “secondary resource” and I will shut up now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Kasdorf
>
> VP and Principal Consultant | *Apex CoVantage*
>
> p:
>
> 734-904-6252 <(734)%20904-6252>  m:   734-904-6252 <(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:* Charles LaPierre [mailto:charlesl@benetech.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:18 AM
> *To:* Bill Kasdorf
> *Cc:* Garth Conboy; Matt Garrish; W3C Publishing Working Group
> *Subject:* Re: resource naming
>
>
>
> +1 to Primary an +1 to Supporting
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> EOM
>
> Charles LaPierre
> Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
> E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org
> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
> Skype: charles_lapierre
> Phone: 650-600-3301 <(650)%20600-3301>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Bill Kasdorf <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 <(734)%20904-6252>  m:   734-904-6252 <(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 <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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>