[michaelcampbell]

>> One metadata and one the file contents.

> I’d say this is not the right way to describe a resource fork. Instead, think of it as two sets of file contents—one called "data" and one called "rsrc". On-disk, they are both just bytestreams.

I think it's a perfectly fine way. You're just coming at it from a wildly different level of abstraction.

One could say yours is not the right way either and jump down into quantum fields as another level.

[IIsi50MHz]

GP is more accurate, because "file contents" could be in either or both. Not all files had a data fork, and not all files had a resource fork. Some metadata, such icon position, was also stored independently of the file, using the hidden Desktop database.