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.