Re: first cut at a UR* usage list

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


Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 10:50:02 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199812231650.KAA17361@isis.visi.com>
From: "Craig A. Finseth" <fin@finseth.com>
To: miked@tbt.com
Cc: www-tv@w3.org
Subject: Re: first cut at a UR* usage list

   Nice job on this.  One comment below on my submission and your note.

   What is the next step?  Should we try to distill these more?

Good question.

I have seen no messages suggesting additions, removals or significant
changes to my first cut list since posting.

It may just be the holidays, but we could have actually gotten this one
right the first time.  Phil?

This is a list of applications/uses.  I imagine the next step would be
to compare this with the requirements document and see if any changes
are called for.  Again, Phil?

Craig

   At 04:19 PM 12/17/98 -0600, Craig A. Finseth wrote:
   >
   >7. Be able to name standard web content that is *also* being made
   >available and delivered via some tv data broadcast to local cache:
   >
   >	http://www.wsj.com/headlines.html
   >
   >[ Note: this item is included for completeness.  In fact, we support
   >for this is already part of the http: standard and we don't have to do
   >anything. ]

   My submission was not very clear.  The point I was trying to make here was
   a policy one that obviously does not require a new URI scheme.  I believe
   it is important to point out that when content *could* be obtained via a
   common scheme on a common transport (i.e. HTTP over Internet), then a
   common URL should perhaps be used to tag the object, and specifically to
   not be forced to make up a potentially opaque tv-specific reference if you
   don't have to just because it is being delivered via a TV transport.
   Perhaps this usage is obvious and not in dispute, but just in case not...
	...

Actually, this is exactly what I understood you to mean.  Apologies if
my restatement was in turn unclear.

   Also, my assumption was that in addition to URI(s), the output of this
   discussion list would be recommended practices (policy) and even
   potentially using other common Internet protocols to solve the problems
   stated here.  I am not assuming that every application scenario described
   here will be solved entirely by simply defining URI(s); nor that this group
   is limited to URI discussions only.

Well stated.

Craig