RE: BIG ISSUE -- re Delivery Units

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


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
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf
>Of Bailey, Bruce
>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:25 AM
>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?)

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 16:01:09 UTC