- From: Teixeira, Mateus <mteixeira@wwnorton.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:27:54 +0000
- To: Rachel Comerford <rachel.comerford@macmillan.com>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
- CC: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <747905B8-A86D-494A-8B15-F0717C096755@wwnorton.com>
+1 for "primary resource" and "secondary resource" – agreed w/ the hierarchical argument From: Rachel Comerford <rachel.comerford@macmillan.com> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:25 AM To: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> Cc: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org> Subject: Re: resource naming Resent-From: <public-publ-wg@w3.org> Resent-Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:25 AM 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<mailto: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<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: Charles LaPierre [mailto:charlesl@benetech.org<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<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y Skype: charles_lapierre Phone: 650-600-3301<tel:(650)%20600-3301> On Jul 27, 2017, at 8:14 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] 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 15:28:21 UTC