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

From: Craig A. Finseth (fin@finseth.com)
Date: Mon, Nov 23 1998


Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:18:38 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199811231618.KAA17933@isis.visi.com>
From: "Craig A. Finseth" <fin@finseth.com>
To: tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com
Cc: gomer@lgerca.com, www-tv@w3.org, e-e@toocan.philabs.research.philips.com
Subject: Re: E-E: Re: URL: Comments on TV URI reqs I-D

	...
   Gomer Thomas wrote:
   > 
   > I worry that we will come up with an excellent scheme which meets all
   > needs for DTV, but objections will be raised that it does not meet this
   > requirement, 

   So, maybe it is not that excellent :) It might be excellent 
   with respect to the requirements you are concerned about. 
	...

   Maybe we didn't define our scope that precisely, and we all 
   assume our own vision is the correct one. So, let's check that.
	...
   Storing TV Broadcast content after transmission is not something
   I find tangentially related. The Internet is neither. After all,
   I thought that was the reason to instantiate this Interest Group.
   It is also a driving reason why we are thinking of using URI in 
   TV Broadcast at all.

Perhaps if we changed the requirement to read:

o  A URI should be resolvable under any of the following network 
   access conditions:
   -  TV Broadcast, same or another network
   -  Internet
>   -  Home/local storage and playback of TV broadcast content <
   -  Other (future) networks

? This permits common operations without expanding the scope too much.

Craig