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 13:37:12 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199811231937.NAA29484@isis.visi.com>
From: "Craig A. Finseth" <fin@finseth.com>
To: PPeterka@gi.com
Cc: tenkate@natlab.research.philips.com, 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

Great example.  I thought that it was so obvious that it didn't need
to be mentioned.  I was wrong.

And yes, this is one of the reasons why I believe that the tagged data
approach is best.

   But there may be multiple ways to get to an web page. The http: is the
   Internet way and it works for boxes that have an Internet connection. You
   can also imagine that some Internet content will be sent on a data carousel.
   For such a case you may need a mapping. The solution may be part of what was
   discussed at the last DASE meeting: a module on a carousel can be labeled
   with a dtv: URI as well as http: URI. The receiver when it wants to get to a
   particular http: resource has the choice of accessing it via a direct
   connection or via the carousel based on its capabilities. 

	   Petr 

   > -----Original Message-----
   > From:	Craig A. Finseth [SMTP:fin@finseth.com]
   > Sent:	Monday, November 23, 1998 10:13 AM
   > 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
   > 
   >    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 ?
   > 
   > Nothing.  URIs for accessing web content are already defined (http,
   > ftp, https, ...).
   > 
   > Craig