repo name nit: it'd be nice if this were simply w3c/epub

[hober]

(or w3c/epub3, given w3c/epub4 also exists)

[mattgarrish]

I was going to suggest the epub4 repository could just be deleted as we never used it, but then I discovered all the neat stuff it does...

No strong opinion one way or the other on changing repository names. The diffs and revision histories cited in the older revisions broke ages ago when we moved off google code and then changed a bunch of labels, so I can't imagine it could make things any worse.

[iherman]

1. We can do neat stuff elsewhere 😀, so deleting, or at least archiving, the epub4 repository is fine with me. I do not see us reopening the epub4 line in the years to come...

2. My worry with the epub-spec->epub renaming is twofold.

   1. I hope that the GitHub redirection will continue to work, but I am not sure about github.io/epub-spec. If those types or URLs are not redirected, we will create a bunch of dangling links in our specs, because all the editors' drafts have those types of URLs. Usually, having dangling links in /TR documents is a big no-no...
   2. Don't we create (false) expectations for the epub repository? Wouldn't people expect to find outreach documents, presentation materials, discussion papers, etc., all related to the present and future of epub? That expectation will not be fulfilled, because such documents do not really exist at present. The only thing the repository stores are, well, epub specifications…

   At this moment, I'd prefer not to make the change. The possible set of troubles does not seem to be worth it.

[mattgarrish]

I also seem to recall we changed from the original "epub-revision" name from the idpf days to "epub-specs" because we added "epub-tests" and didn't want too generic a name. That's why I'm fine either way on this.