Re: bug in Web Page definition

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 04:05:37PM +0000, Sean Hayes wrote:
> Only the top most resource needs an HTTP(S) URI under the proposed
> definition, the other resources can come from anywhere - thus 1 & 3 below
> would not necessarily be excluded. If we allowed 2 as you propose, then the
> definition of web page would cease to have any meaning at all, as it would
> effectively encompass all information.

However, the term "Web page" is used in WCAG 2.0 to specify the minimal scope
of any entity to which a conformance claim applies. That is, the term does not
restrict the type of resource which can be the subject of a conformance claim.
It is up to users of WCAG 2.0 to decide what to apply it to. Having done that,
the guidelines specify that the minimal scope (i.e., set of resources) that
can be included in a conformance claim is whatever is intended to be rendered
together by a user agent - I am here simplifying the definition a little for
the purposes of exposition.

The term "Web page" is never used to limit the type of resource to which the
guidelines apply in a way that distinguishes it from software or other
entities, or limits the protocols, file systems, etc., that may be used to
access it. If this is confusing due to the presence of other concepts or
definitions of the term "Web page", then it would be better to move back to a
neutral term such as "Web unit" or "delivered unit" that doesn't have widely
understood meanings distinct from the WCAG definition.

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 00:03:51 UTC