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

RE: BIG ISSUE -- re Delivery Units

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:59:57 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

The definition of "authored unit" from Device Independence Glossary [1] is:

"Some set of material created as a single entity by an author. Examples 
include a collection of markup, a style sheet, and a media resource, such 
as an image or audio clip"

NOTE: "resource" in the previous definition is further defined from [1] as:

"A network data object or service that can be identified by a 
URI.  Resources may be available in multiple representations (e.g. multiple 
languages, data formats, size, resolutions) or vary in other ways.  This 
term was taken verbatim from Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.1."

NOTE: URI in the previous definition is further defined from [1] as:

"A short string that uniquely identifies a resource, such as an HTML 
document, an image, a down-loadable file, a service, or an electronic 
mailbox. "

(definition of URI and resource seem "circular" in [1], in that each is 
defined in terms of the other?)

Are these definitions helpful at all in the context of the current discussion?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/

At 06:22 PM 2/13/2006 -0600, you wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
> > There has *not* been an explanation why Authored Unit is not a
>satisfactory replacement for Delivery Unit (for most places in SC of the
>current public draft).
>Indeed there hasn't.  In fact - Authored Unit may be what we are looking
>for.    I just looked at the definition.  It had been eliminated earlier but
>I'm not at all sure why now.
>Let us look into that.
>  -- ------------------------------
>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>Director - Trace R & D Center
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of Bailey, Bruce
>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:25 AM
>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: RE: BIG ISSUE -- re Delivery Units
> > No I don't like the term Web unit - but no other term exists that
> > means what we need.
>There has *not* been an explanation why Authored Unit is not a satisfactory
>replacement for Delivery Unit (for most places in SC of the current public
> > Please re-read the thread carefully.
> > The same issues and suggestions keep getting raised and answered and
> > re-raised.  I will be happy to respond to new questions but don't want
> > to keep reposting the same information repeatedly.
>The discussion of Authored Unit has its own thread[1] but that was only in
>the context only of eliminating the term from the definition of Structure.
>The reasoning why Delivery Unit and Perceivable Unit are not close
>equivalents to Web Unit has been lucid.  Authored Unit has not been given
>the same treatment.
> > We either have to add a term like this or add 18 words or more to the
> > 9 or so sc that use the term delivery unit.
>My exercise[2] of removing DU from the eleven impacted SC resulted in ten of
>them being *shorter* and more readable (2.4.4 was the exception).  There has
>not been discussion if that results in the SC being too imprecise or
>otherwise degraded.
> >> The problem is not the DU, but the conformance statement.
> > How do you fix the problem in the SC with a change to the conformance
> > statement?  Would be an easy fix - but I don't see how.
>I tried[2] to patch 2.4.4 (Content has titles wherever applicable to the
>baseline technology) to make it appropriately conditional.  If 2.4.4 is
>rewritten to use Web Unit, there is still a problem (but fixing 10 out 11 is
>certainly better than 1 out of 11 using the correct DI term), so the
>immediate terminology issue has been mitigated but not completely solved
>with the introduction of Web Unit.
>Why can't the common sense concept of "when applicable to the chosen
>baseline technology" (wording needs to be improved) shifted into the body of
>WCAG 2.0?  Such a tactic would also eliminate the current pressing reason to
>avoid Delivery Unit.  The conformance section seems to be a logical place
>for this.  (I would be pleased to offer a take at this, but isn't the
>current version recognized to be in rough shape anyway?)
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006JanMar/0217.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006JanMar/0248.html
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 16:01:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:58 UTC