"Links" or "extraResources" ?

[iherman]

The latest version of the spec introduced the list of external resources, but the exact term name was not fully decided yet (it is a placeholder in the draft. Two alternatives came up so far:

1. extraResources
2. Links

This should be finalized.

[HadrienGardeur]

I prefer the conciseness of links (lowercase, like resources).

[mattgarrish]

Coming late to the party, I have to admit I didn't exactly follow what this new list is for. What are examples of resources used in the rendering of a web publication but don't belong to it?

The definition shares paragraphs with the resource list, which makes it additionally confusing.

For the above reason, I couldn't say whether I prefer one term or the other, or would hazard to offer an alternative. Links sounds like epub's use of links to reference non-rendering resources, but it doesn't sound like a good term if these are actually resources needed to render the web publication (third party scripts?).

[iherman]

@mattgarrish sorry about that; this issue has come up as a minor issue within the discussion of #225, and which was closed by virtue of #232.

The difference/usage? There may be resources that are essential to the WP from, e.g., a processing or rendering point of view, but that the author does not consider to be part of the WP bounds, ie, she does not expect that resource to be part of a cashed or packaged version thereof. Examples that did come up include the ONIX metadata of the publication or the accessibility report; both might be onerous, but nevertheless essential for processing the WP.

Another class of references that did come to the fore are references to server side services like online dictionaries or special search facilities.

[iherman]

links is, though indeed concise, a fairly misleading term in my view. All entries in the reading order or the resources are also links; using this term might give the impression that entries on those arrays are, in some structural sense, fundamentally different from what would appear in links. And they are not: they use the same structure (currently PublictionLinks) with all their terms, they are fundamentally similar except for their usage within this particular WP.

externalResources reflects the fact that the entries are indeed very similar to resources with the only difference that they are, well, external to the WP bounds.

I do not particularly like externalResources either, and I am open to any suggestion that expresses the similarity with, as well as the difference from resources, but I have not found anything better so far. links, for me, is not satisfactory at all...

[llemeurfr]

There still seems to be some loose ends in the definition of these resources:

The accessibility report and the privacy policy are listed in the draft as Informative properties: this implies that there are NOT "essential to the to the WP from, e.g., a processing or rendering point of view" (quoting @iherman). Neither are references to external metadata records (ONIX in practice), or links to discovery services or alternate representations of the publication (a proposal made by @HadrienGardeur).

IMO "links" are these resources that ARE NOT essential for the user and the UA, but rather "see also" resources or additional remote services. And because they are not essential, they are de-facto external to the WP boundaries (i.e. they won't be ever packaged).

Therefore the simple name "links" is sufficiently clear for me, as it indicates some relationship, but precludes a notion of composition, embedding etc.

[iherman]

@llemeurfr, @HadrienGardeur I do not want to fall into the trap of bike shedding too much. I personally can live with links, and I would presume that you won’t lie down the road against externalResources either. I would propose people would just comment by voting for either of the two, and we would take whatever has the majority on, say, our call on Monday.

At this moment, it is 2:1 in favour of links...

[GarthConboy]

No lying down in the road for me either, and I'm 1000's of miles away from Ivan... so, I'll go with a slight preference toward links.