RE: BIG ISSUE -- re Delivery Units

Johannes wrote:
> Don't you define the "Web Unit" to be exactly this [Delivery unit]?

See the problem statement (below)

Each image is a DU
Images can't meet the Guidelines on their own.

Hence, as written - the guidelines cannot be met by any site or page that
has an image on it.

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Johannes Koch
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: BIG ISSUE -- re Delivery Units

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> The problem is
> 1.	the images don't pass our guidelines
> 2.	if you make any kind of claim for your site (or any URI pattern) it
> would include the URI's for the images etc (unless you stored the 
> images off in some remote location)
> This is not what we intend.    After looking at this for awhile Ben and
> and I are suggesting that perhaps we focus on the delivery unit you 
> get from a user request and not the subsequent delivery units that are
fetched as
> part of it.   To do this we would need to define a new entity. 
> Web Unit (e.g. Page)
>     A collection of information, consisting of one or more resources, 
> intended to be rendered together, and identified by a single Uniform
> Resource Identifier (URLs etc.).     

I don't see how this would solve the problems. To be honest, I don't see a

A delivery unit (as it seems to be the understanding of the DI WG) is a
collection of resources with one "primary" resource and 0 or more
"additional" resources, that are fetched by a user agent after fetching the
primary resource without activation by the user (in XLink terms: 

Don't you define the "Web Unit" to be exactly this?
Johannes Koch
Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te, Deus Israel.
                          (Thomas Tallis, 40-part motet)

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 16:49:49 UTC