RE: resource naming

I'd suggest we leave it for now, unless you have a great substitute in mind. Spine resource might prove a better-named alternative, as Laurent suggested, but we need to discuss more of the structure of the manifest to get all the naming. We can revisit once things start to fall into place.

 

Matt

 

From: eb2mmrt@gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt@gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: July 28, 2017 4:53 PM
To: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: resource naming

 

Although I have used "primary resource", I think that we have to 

avoid conflicts with IETF RFCs, which define URIs.

 

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt  already uses "primary resource" 

and "secondary resource".  I thus think that we should find 

different terms.

 

Regards,

Makoto

 

2017-07-28 0:34 GMT+09:00 Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> >:

+1

 


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: Rachel Comerford [mailto:rachel.comerford@macmillan.com <mailto:rachel.comerford@macmillan.com> ] 
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:25 AM
To: Bill Kasdorf
Cc: Charles LaPierre; Garth Conboy; Matt Garrish; W3C Publishing Working Group
Subject: 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 <tel:(212)%20576-9433>  

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

 

 

 





 

-- 


Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto