Naming and location of JSON package document

[dauwhe]

The proposal currently says that the JSON package document must be called package.json and located at the top level of the file system container. I've heard some general objections to defined names. Are there other suggestions here?

[HadrienGardeur]

The proposal is missing something: we discussed with the core group how BFF could be used as an external record in 3.1.

It was agreed that the best way to handle this is to actually use rel="alternate" and an identifiable media-type:

<link href="manifest.json" rel="alternate" media-type="application/epub+json" />

A well-known location is only useful if we plan on making the JSON serialization the primary document in the future (no more OPF, and we also drop all the other OCF specific XML documents).

[dauwhe]

My assumption all along has been that we could create independent BFF publications that would not have OPFs, container files, META-INF, or anything from OCF. In this case, I think a well-known location is important.

[HadrienGardeur]

Right but that more a target for 4.0 than 3.1 (having a zipped publication with just the JSON serialization instead of all the XML files).

That said, it's simple enough for us to cover that issue right now.

[HadrienGardeur]

Aside from its name (manifest or package), I think that we should also explore the file extension used for BFF. This is one of the two ways (along with media types) that most OS could detect a BFF.