RE: E-E: Re: URL: Comments on TV URI reqs I-D

From: Adams, Glenn (gadams@spyglass.com)
Date: Mon, Nov 23 1998


Message-ID: <D181361D7C86D011925700805FFE898E01F38556@spybem01.nap.spyglass.com>
From: "Adams, Glenn" <gadams@spyglass.com>
To: "'Warner ten Kate'" <tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com>, Gomer Thomas <gomer@lgerca.com>
Cc: www-tv <www-tv@w3.org>, End-to-end <e-e@toocan.philabs.research.philips.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:tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com]
		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.