Message-ID: <D181361D7C86D011925700805FFE898E01F38556@spybem01.nap.spyglass.com> From: "Adams, Glenn" <email@example.com> To: "'Warner ten Kate'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Gomer Thomas <email@example.com> Cc: www-tv <firstname.lastname@example.org>, End-to-end <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:50:20 -0600 Subject: RE: E-E: Re: URL: Comments on TV URI reqs I-D -----Original Message----- From: Warner ten Kate [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Monday, November 23, 1998 7:35 AM To: Gomer Thomas Cc: www-tv; End-to-end Subject: Re: E-E: Re: URL: Comments on TV URI reqs I-D [Gomer wrote] * We cannot afford to get bogged down for * months or years trying to figure out how to cope also with all kinds of * other environments which are only tangentially related to the main * goal. I support the set of URI requirements developed by Warner. I understand Gomer's impatience in arriving at a solution that will meet his specific needs; however, this is a standards activity that needs to take a larger set of requirements into account. Suggesting that this will take months or years to resolve seems an exaggeration. Let's find a reasonable solution that satisfies the highest priority requirements and has sufficient extensibility to permit resolving lesser priority requirements. A staged approach may be warranted.