W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: BIG ISSUE -- TAKE 2 on WEB UNIT

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 06:17:59 -0600
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001f01c62d72$e0b9ea40$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>

 Thanks Jason,

Good comments.

I believe in the case of the Object that you would say that each part of the
object was part of the Web Unit since they are intended to be rendered as
part of the Web unit under different circumstances.  (I guess you could
consider the longdesc in this category but I think it is usually called up.
That one I would look at both ways and see if there is any difference - but
I don't see one offhand.)

RE your definition.   It has some very nice features.  The format we are
moving to in definitions though is the ISO where each definition must be
able to substitute for the word.  That would make your first definition
break up some.  

I like your second definition better.  More concise and works better.  Here
is a variation on it with pieces of your first added as well as some
examples and other notes. 



WEB UNIT

primary resource and all resources intended to be rendered with it

NOTE: Resources may be rendered collectively or in any combination.

NOTE: To specify a Web Unit it is sufficient to specify the URI of its
primary resource. 

NOTE: Resources are not considered Web Units unless the author intends for
them to be linked to directly (and not just as part of another Web Unit).  

EXAMPLE 1: A web page including all embedded images and media. 

EXAMPLE 2:  An interactive movie-like shopping environment where the user
navigates about and activates products to have them demonstrated, and moves
them to cart at the bottom of the screen to buy them. 
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:18:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:42 GMT