Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add primary entry page to resources when not a publication resource #75

Open
mattgarrish opened this issue Feb 13, 2020 · 6 comments
Open
Labels
postponed Postponed for future review

Comments

@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member

mattgarrish commented Feb 13, 2020

The primary entry page is a required publication resource, but right now all the publication manifest algorithm does is warn if it is not present in either the reading order or resource list.

Audiobooks could add a step to automatically add the document to the resource list if it's not there to avoid the warning, similar to how pub manifest adds the document to the reading order as a last resort (fyi, it can't for audiobooks, as audiobooks fail earlier if there isn't a reading order).

Or we could just punt on this as an idea for the future if it actually proves to be a real pain to have to list.

@llemeurfr
Copy link
Contributor

Why not simply remove the URL of the PEP from the manifest?

see details on this position on #61 (comment)

@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member Author

Why not simply remove the URL of the PEP from the manifest?

You can, but it becomes more inconsistent with web publications, for whatever that matters anymore. Automatically adding it to the resource list satisfies the original requirement for it to appear in one of the lists.

@llemeurfr
Copy link
Contributor

it becomes more inconsistent with web publications

Not if the Web Publications Note is modified in parallel :-)

@llemeurfr
Copy link
Contributor

But I understand your point, and after all keeping the URL of the PEP in the Manifest in-memory object helps for displaying easily the PEP at the request of the user.

@wareid
Copy link
Contributor

wareid commented Sep 9, 2020

Can we close this issue as well? (per #61 )

@llemeurfr
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think so: there is a processing model to modify in a future version.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
postponed Postponed for future review
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants