Re: E-E: Re: URL: Comments on TV URI reqs I-D
From: Warner ten Kate (tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com)
Date: Mon, Nov 23 1998
Message-Id: <36599A65.7E6FC2CD@natlab.research.philips.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:24:53 +0100
From: Warner ten Kate <tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com>
To: fin@finseth.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
Craig A. Finseth wrote:
>
> 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.
>
If that removes your objections, fine with me.
However, shouldn't we look to make this point more generally,
e.g. in the Abstract ?
I mean we are talking about URIs to access TV Broadcast content,
aren't we ? What should we specify (in this context) about
URIs accessing Web content ?
Warner.