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 draft).

> 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 Monday, 13 February 2006 16:24:51 UTC