Re: I-D submission "Requirements on TV Broadcast URIs"

From: Warner ten Kate (tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com)
Date: Wed, Nov 18 1998


Message-Id: <3652FEED.5B3CAE2C@natlab.research.philips.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:07:57 +0100
From: Warner ten Kate <tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com>
To: fin@finseth.com
Cc: gomer@lgerca.com, www-tv@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D submission "Requirements on TV Broadcast URIs"

Craig A. Finseth wrote:
> 
>    You could argue to remove requiring compatibility with the ATSC URI
>    scheme, because it is a not yet approved scheme. On the contrary,
> 
> Umm, we (Gomer and I through DASE) are working on the ATSC scheme.

So, the scheme is not approved :>)

> 
> Well, in the sense that the other organizations drop their existing
> schemes to adopt one that meets the (other) requirements, we gain
> compatability.

OK, so I propose you immediately drop your ATSC scheme.
It isn't used anyway.

(How does that feel? I say this to make clear what you 
are saying: "others should adapt, we're right", at least
that's the way I understand you.)


> 
>    The purpose of this requirement is to acknowledge that there are
>    other bodies also defining URI schemes. Somehow, we need to align.
>    Ignoring is not the way achieving that.
> 
> Then it should be stated this way.  Something like:
> 
>         Any actual scheme must be coordinated with ATSC, DVB, DAVIC, etc.
>         and must be usable by those systems (assuming an implementation,
>         of course).

Thanks. I'll adapt our draft to that. How about:

"Any actual scheme must be coordinated with standardisation bodies 
such as ATSC, DVB, DAVIC, and must be reasonably acceptable to 
those bodies."


Warner.