Message-Id: <3652FEED.5B3CAE2C@natlab.research.philips.com> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:07:57 +0100 From: Warner ten Kate <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com 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.